BERKELEY 

LIBRARY 

UNIVLR  ;TY  of 
CALIFORNIA 


.& 


*>. 


THE  SEE  OF  PETEE  AND 
THE  VOICE  OE  ANTIQUITY 


CRITICAL  NOTES  ON  BISHOP  COXE'S 
ANTE-NICENE  FATHERS 


BY 

REV.  THOMAS  S.  DOLAN 

AUTHOR  OF    "PLAIN  SERMONS" 


WITH  A  PREFACE  BY 

HIS  EMINENCE  JAMES  CARDINAL  GIBBONS.  D.D. 


ST.   LOUIS,    MO.,    AND    FREIBURG  (BADEN) 
Published  by  B.  Herder 

1908 


LOAN  STACK 


NIHIL  OBSTAT. 

F.  G.  Holweck, 

Censor  theologicus. 
S.  Ludovici,  die  14.  Martii  1908. 


IMPRIMATUR. 

►£<  Joannes  J.  Glennon, 

Archiepiscopus  S.  Ludovici. 
S.  Ludovici,  die  14.  Martii  1908. 


Copyright,  1908,  by  Joseph  Gummersbach. 


— BECKTOLD— 

PRINTING  AND  BOOK  MFG.  CO. 
ST.  LOUIS,  MO. 


JBfao 

ft56l+ 


PREFACE 

This  book  is  a  refutation  of  Bishop  Coxe's 
notes  on  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  in  so  far  as 
these  notes  call  into  question  the  ancient  au- 
thority and  prestige  of  the  Apostolic  See. 

This  refutation  comprises  principally, 
studies  in  the  original  texts  of  Clement  of 
Eome,  Ignatius,  Irenaeus,  Hippolytus,  Ter- 
tullian,  Origen  and  Cyprian;  with  a  view  to 
correcting  inaccurate  readings,  exposing  bits 
of  special  pleading,  textual  distortions  and 
historical  misrepresentations. 

The  special  exercise  of  jurisdiction  outside 
of  the  diocese  of  Rome,  on  the  part  of  Popes 
Clement  I,  Victor,  Dionysius,  Cornelius  and 
Stephen  in  ante-Nicene  times,  is  set  forth  and 
explained  on  the  only  one  possible  ground. 

Dr.  Coxe's  "accounting"  for  the  rise 
and  development  of  the  "papal  system' '  is 
proven  a  miserable  fabrication,  having  no  re- 
lation to  history. 

His  contention  that  the  Papacy  rests  upon 
the  "Forged  Decretals,' '  is  disposed  of. 

His  declaration  that  the  East  never  ac- 
iii 

700 


iv  PEEFACE 

cepted  the  "Petrine  claims/ '  is  refuted  by- 
ample  and  unquestionable  oriental  testi- 
mony. 

Father  Dolan  being  a  man  of  natural  abil- 
ity, perfected  by  long  training,  and  broad- 
ened by  large  erudition,  I  doubt  not  that  this 
scholarly  work  of  his  will  be  gladly  received 
and  widely  read. 

I  commend  this  work  to  the  many  who  have 
the  edition  of  Dr.  Coxe's  ante-Nicene 
Fathers,  as  well  as  to  all  interested  in  things 
Catholic  and  historical. 

J.  Card.  Gibbons. 


INTRODUCTION 

The  writer  is  fully  aware  that  the  subject 
matter  of  the  present  volume  has  been 
treated  ably  by  theologians  and  controver- 
sialists. Yet,  for  reasons  which  shall  be  set 
forth  presently,  he  thinks  the  following 
pages  opportune,  and  hopes  that  they  may 
prove  helpful  in  the  discussion  of  a  doctrine, 
which  so  sharply  distinguishes  Catholicism 
from  Protestantism. 

Some  years  ago,  a  translation  of  the  ante- 
Nicene  Fathers  was  published  by  Charles 
Scribner's  Sons  of  New  York  City.  This 
publication  was  a  reprint  of  the  well  known 
Oxford  and  Edinburgh  translations.  The 
series  produced  in  New  York  was,  unfortu- 
nately, edited  by  Bishop  Coxe,  the  then  Prot- 
estant-Episcopal Bishop  of  western  New 
York.  That  Dr.  Coxe  was  a  man  of  consid- 
erable and  varied  learning,  must  be  admitted 
readily;  but  just  as  readily  must  it  be  main- 
tained, that  he  had  very  little  critical  fac- 
ulty— or  if  he  had  that  faculty  in  any 
generous  measure,  it  is  most  effectively  con- 

v 


vi  INTRODUCTION 

cealed  in  his  notes  on  the  ante-Nicene  Fath- 
ers. His  animus  toward  the  Catholic  Church, 
was  such  as  to  vitiate  any  work  which  he 
might  have  essayed  upon  those  points, 
which  differentiate  the  sect  to  which  he  be- 
longed, from  the  Universal  Church.  Any 
patristic  reference  to  the  See  of  Rome,  and 
its  position  of  pre-eminence  in  the  episcopate, 
produces  in  Dr.  Coxe  a  sort  of  frenzy;  and 
by  every  sort  of  expedient,  he  endeavors  to 
weaken,  minimize  or  destroy  in  the  reader's 
mind,  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  text.  On 
occasion,  he  dismisses  a  text  distinctly  favor- 
able to  the  Catholic  doctrine  concerning  the 
Pope,  with  the  remark,  that  "the  passage 
is  undoubtedly  spurious,' '  without  however, 
offering  anything  that  possibly  could  be 
taken  as  a  proof  of  his  assertion.  His 
method  at  times  betrays  him  into  pitiable  sit- 
uations. This  is  painfully  evident  in  his  ef- 
forts to  coerce  Irenaeus  and  Cyprian  into 
his  way  of  estimating  the  power  of  the 
Roman  Pontiffs,  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
Church. 

Now  there  has  been  another  edition  of  this 
same  series  of  Ante-nicene  Fathers  published 
within  the  last  two  or  three  years,  with  all 
Dr.  Coxe's  notes  intact.  This  edition  has 
been  widely  advertised,  and  it  is  common 


INTRODUCTION  vii 

knowledge,  that  Catholic  priests  in  consider- 
able numbers  have  patronized  it.  It  has 
been  followed  by  editions  of  the  Nicene  and 
post-Nicene  Fathers.  It  is  only  fair  to  state, 
that  the  editors  of  the  two  latter  series, 
though  not  sympathetic  with  any  distinctively 
Catholic  positions,  are  men  of  greater 
breadth  and  more  critical  scholarship  than 
the  estimable  Dr.  Coxe. 

It  appears  to  the  writer,  that  the  work  of 
examining  and  refuting  Bishop  Coxe's  notes, 
by  appeals  to  the  undisputed  texts  of  the 
ante-Nicene  Fathers,  would  be  acceptable, 
and  perhaps  of  assistance  to  the  younger 
clergy,  among  whom  there  is  an  unmistakable 
intellectual  stir.  I  might  add,  that  there  are 
serious  reasons,  why  such  a  work  should  find 
its  way  into  the  hands  of  the  educated  laity. 

The  edition  of  the  Fathers  now  under  con- 
sideration, open  though  it  be  to  justly  unfav- 
orable criticism,  is  nevertheless  a  boon.  Al- 
though the  number  of  Catholic  priests  who 
could  deal  familiarly  with  the  Latin  Fathers 
in  their  own  idiom,  is  by  no  means  inconsider- 
able, yet,  for  a  great  many,  the  perusal  of 
the  original  texts,  would  take  on  a  laborious 
character.  This  observation  applies  to  the 
Greek  Fathers  with  much  greater  force. 
Hence  it  is  of  no  mean  advantage  to  have 


viii  INTRODUCTION 

facile  access  to  so  much  Patristic  literature, 
as  the  English  edition  affords.  It  is  expe- 
dient however,  if  not  really  necessary,  to 
have  at  hand  some  antidote  for  the  errors, 
the  prejudice,  the  manifestly  false,  if  not 
dishonest  interpretations,  the  distortion  of 
texts  and  the  bits  of  foolish  special  pleading, 
that  here  and  there  disfigure  the  work.  That 
antidote,  this  unpretentious  volume,  endeav- 
ors in  some  little  measure  to  supply. 

T.  S.  D. 
St.  Mary's, 
Laurel,  Md., 
Feb.,  1908.      . 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface iii 

Introduction* v 

CHAPTER  I 

PETER,    BISHOP    OF    ROME  —  CLEMENT,    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS 

The  idea  of  doctrinal  development.  Real  reason  of  the 
Anglican  attitude  toward  Rome.  Overwhelming  testi- 
mony as  to  Peter's  residence  in  Rome  as  bishop,  and  his 
death  there.  Explanation  of  the  Corinthians'  appeal  to 
Clement  while  John  still  lived.  Intrinsic  evidence  from 
Clement's    letter 1 

CHAPTER  II 

IGNATIUS  —  IREN^EUS 

The  epistle  of  Ignatius  to  the  Romans.  Dr.  Coxe's  weak 
translation  of  the  inscription  to  said  letter.  The  letter 
of  Bishop  Pothinus  of  Lyons  to  Pope  Eleutherus.  Dr. 
Coxe's  unwarranted  assumption  anent  said  letter.  Eleu- 
therus and  the  Montanist  heresy.  Power  of  Rome  set 
forth  in  Pope  Victor's  excommunication  of  the  Asian 
churches.  Study  of  the  famous  passage  of  Irenanis  Con- 
tra Haeres.  lib.  Ill,  cap.  IV.  Dr.  Coxe's  special  pleading 
and  textual   distortions 10 

CHAPTER  III 

TEBTULLIAN    AND    ORIGEN 

Dr.  Coxe's  false  view  of  the  Roman  Church  of  the  second 
century.     Amazing   assumptions   regarding    Cyprian   and 

IX 


s  CONTENTS 

Augustine.  Augustine's  view  as  to  the  probable  return 
of  Cyprian  to  unity.  "  Specialties  "  of  the  English  Ref- 
ormation. England  thoroughly  Papal  before  Henry's 
rebellion  against  Rome.  Tertullian's  testimonies.  The 
English  Church  and  "  well  defined  teaching."  Anglican 
sympathy  with  the  Greek  Schism.  Dr.  Coxe's  erroneous 
view  of  Alexandria's  prestige.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
called  to  account  by  Dionysius  of  Rome.  Pope  Julius  I 
and  the  Eusebians  at  Antioch.  The  ancient  canon  safe- 
guarding Rome's  pre-eminence.  The  appeal  of  Athanasius 
and  four  oriental  bishops  to  Julius.  Rome  and  Sar- 
dica.  Pope  Damasus  and  the  Synod  at  Constantinople 
26 

CHAPTER  IV 

HIPPOLYTUS 

Dr.  Coxe's  view  as  to  the  degradation  of  the  Roman  Church 
as  set  forth  by  Hippolytus  (  ?).  Discussion  of  the  iden- 
tity of  Hippolytus  and  the  genuineness  of  the  work 
"  Against  All  Heresies."  The  silence  of  history  on  the 
iniquities  of  Popes  Zephyrinus  and  Callistus.  Dr.  Coxe's 
notion  of  the  post-Nicene  position  of  the  Popes.  The 
Nicene  Canons.  Pope  Gregory  I  and  the  "  Petrine  idea." 
Dr.  Coxe's  ignorance  of  the  meaning  of  the  Vatican 
definition 45 

CHAPTER  V 

CYPRIAN 

Summing  up  of  Dr.  Coxe's  notes  on  Cyprian  and  refutation 
of  the  same.  Ample  testimonies  from  Cyprian  against 
Dr.  Coxe's  position.  The  question  of  interpolation.  Dr. 
Coxe's   uncritical    scholarship    laid   bare    ....     CO 


CONTENTS  xi 

CHAPTER  VI 

DR.    COXE'S    SUMMING    UP 

Resume"  of  evidence  against  his  position.  Leo  I  and  his 
concept  of  the  Papacy.  Leo  and  Flavian  of  Constanti- 
nople. Leo's  rejection  of  the  twenty-eighth  canon  of 
Chalcedon.  Testimonies  of  Popes  St.  Siricius,  Innocent 
I  and  Celestine  I.  Complete  unmasking  of  Dr.  Coxe  on 
the  matter  of  the  controversy  between  Gregory  I  and 
John  the  Faster,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople     .      .     74 

CHAPTER  VII 

VOICES    FROM   THE   EAST 

Testimonies  of  Stephen  Bishop  of  Dora  in  Palestine  —  of 
St.  Sophronius  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  Letter  of  the 
Synod  of  Cyprus  (A.  D.  643)  to  Pope  Theodore.  Words 
of  the  greatest  of  the  Anglicans,  John  Henry  Newman     95 


THE   SEE  OF  PETER  AND 
THE  VOICE  OF  ANTIQUITY 


CHAPTER  I 

CLEMENT  TO   THE 
CORINTHIANS 


"When  the  Church  was  thrown  upon  her 
own  resources,  first  local  disturbances  gave 
exercise  to  Bishops,  and  next  ecumenical  dis- 
turbances gave  exercise  to  Popes;,  and 
whether  communion  with  the  Pope  was 
necessary  for  Catholicity,  would  not  and 
could  not  be  debated,  till  a  suspension  of  that 
communion  had  actually  occurred.  It  is  not 
a  greater  difficulty,  that  St.  Ignatius  does  not 
write  to  the  Asian  Greeks  about  Popes,  than 
that  St.  Paul  does  not  write  to  the  Corin- 
thians about  Bishops.  And  it  is  a  less  diffi- 
culty, that  the  Papal  supremacy  was  not 
formally  acknowledged  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, than  that  there  was  no  formal  ac- 
knowledgment on  the  part  of  the  Church  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  till  the 
fourth.  No  doctrine  is  defined  till  it  is  vio- 
lated." 

1 


2  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

"And  in  like  manner,  it  was  natural  for 
Christians  to  direct  their  course  in  matters  of 
doctrine,  by  the  guidance  of  mere  floating, 
and  as  it  were,  endemic  tradition,  while  it 
was  fresh  and  strong;  but  in  proportion  as 
it  languished  or  was  broken  up  in  particu- 
lar places,  did  it  become  necessary  to  fall 
back  upon  its  special  homes,  first  the  Ap- 
ostolic Sees,  and  then  the  See  of  Peter.' ' * 

These  words  from  the  pen  of  Cardinal 
Newman,  shed  floods  of  light  upon  a  dogma 
which  has  been  impugned,  traduced  and  re- 
viled most  thoroughly,  by  our  separated 
brethren.  The  line  of  argument  adopted  by 
our  Anglican  opponents,  namely,  that  the 
Papal  idea  was  not  sufficiently  in  evidence 
during  the  first  ages  of  the  Church,  to  war- 
rant its  acceptance  on  their  part,  cannot  well 
endure  critical  inspection.  The  same  proc- 
ess of  argumentation,  logically  forces  the  ad- 
herents of  the  Anglican  position,  to  call  into 
question  the  consubtantiality  of  Jesus  Christ 
with  the  Father;  for  this  point  of  doctrine 
was  not  only  storm-swept  from  the  first  age 
of  Christianity,  but  (as  Newman  observes 
above),  it  was  not  defined  until  the  fourth 
century.  And  even  after  the  august  assem- 
bly of  Nice  had  promulgated  its  symbol,  the 

i  Newman's  "Development,"  Cap.  IV,  Sect.  III. 


PETER  AT  ROME— CLEMENT       3 

homoiisios  was  not  only  repudiated  by  a  con- 
siderable number  of  bishops,  as  for  instance 
the  Eusebians  convened  at  Antioch,  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  but  at  the  same 
period  bishops,  intentionally  the  most  ortho- 
dox, juggled  (if  I  may  be  allowed  the  word) 
with  the  symbol,  after  most  curious  fashions, 
as  is  evident  from  their  letters  to  one  another. 
No  one  acquainted  with  Patristic  literature, 
will  deny,  that  the  language  of  a  number  of 
the  Ante-nicene  Fathers  concerning  the  ho- 
moiisios was  such,  as  they  would  not  have 
used  after  the  symbol  had  been  imposed. 

The  real  reason  of  the  Anglican  attitude 
toward  the  Holy  See  is  simply  this.  The 
doctrine  of  Papal  Supremacy  was  the  point 
of  contact,  when  the  lusts  of  an  English  king 
— a  carrion  beast,  as  Father  Robert  Hugh 
Benson  so  fitly  calls  him — collided  with  the 
Universal  Church.  As  a  result  of  the  impact, 
the  Cathedra  Petri  unimpaired  continued 
to  exercise  its  Christ-conferred  prerogatives, 
and  the  English  Church  severely  wounded 
from  the  shock,  declined  from  her  former 
self,  and  became  what  she  is  to-day,  a  church 
of  shreds  and  patches.  Her  apologists  and 
theologians  in  their  efforts  to  make  her  posi- 
tion tenable,  must  of  necessity  endeavor  to 
demonstrate     the     spuriousness     of    Papal 


4  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

claims.  With  a  foolish  temerity  they  appeal 
to  the  primitive  age  of  Christianity.  That  ap- 
peal is  fatal  to  their  pretensions.  "To  be 
deep  in  history, ' '  says  Newman,  "is  to  cease 
to  be  a  Protestant." 

The  Eight  Reverend  Bishop  Coxe  begins 
his  labors  in  the  field  of  Patrology,  by  con- 
ceding that  the  martyrdom  of  Sts.  Peter 
and  Paul  at  Rome  "seems  historical/9  and 
by  declaring  that  Clement  of  Rome  "was  the 
natural  representative  of  St.  Paul  and  even 
of  his  companion  St.  Peter. ' ' 

Though  some  few  Protestant  writers  have 
attacked  the  tradition,  which  points  to  the 
residence  of  St.  Peter  in  Rome  as  bishop  of 
that  city,  and  his  glorious  martyrdom  there, 
their  efforts  to  break  down  the  superabun- 
dant testimony  afforded  by  Fathers,  histo- 
rians and  a  universal  belief  in  the  Church, 
have  failed  most  dismally.  It  is  a  matter 
of  marvel,  that  in  the  face  of  such  testi- 
monies as  those  of  Irenaeus,1  Tertullian,2 
Cyprian,3  Eusebius,4  and  a  host .  of  post- 
Nicene  authorities,  such  as  Theodoret,  Je- 
rome, Augustine,  Ambrose,  Leo  the  Great, 
Gregory  the  Great  and  others',  that  a  handful 

i  Contra  Haeres.  lib.  IV,  C.  3. 

2  Contra  Marcion,  lib.  III. 

3  Ep.  LIV  ad  Cornel. 

*  Lib.  II,  C.  23.     Lib.  Ill,  C.  4. 


PETER  AT  ROME— CLEMENT       5 

of  moderns  would  brave  the  task  of  keeping 
the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Rock  upon 
which  the  fabric  of  the  Church  is  reared,  out 
of  Rome.  To  state,  in  the  face  of  the  over- 
whelming testimony,  proving  the  residence 
of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  as  its  bishop,  and  his 
martyrdom  there  that  they  only  "seem"  his- 
torical, is  at  once  an  evidence  of  pronounced 
bias,  and  an  absence  of  critical  scholarship, 
for  that  scholarship  takes  the  correct  meas- 
ure of  historical  documents. 

ii 

Bishop  Coxe  takes  care  to  observe  in  a 
footnote  anent  the  inscription  of  the  famous 
Clementine  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  that 
the  latter  requested  Clement  to  write  the 
epistle.  The  inference  to  be  drawn  is,  that 
Clement  would  not  have  interfered  other- 
wise in  the  affairs  of  another  church.  This 
little  note  of  the  ingenious  Dr.  Coxe  is  un- 
fortunate for  his  case.  It  is  unquestionably 
true,  that  Pope  Clement  was  asked  for  the 
weight  of  his  authority,  and  the  light  of  his 
wisdom  to  cure  the  sedition  which  then  rent 
the  church  of  Corinth.  "We  feel,"  writes 
Clement,  "that  to  some  extent,  we  have  not 
been  prompt  enough,  in  giving  our  attention 
to  the  affairs  concerning  which  you  have 


6  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

consulted  us. ' ' *  Instead,  however,  of  re- 
garding this  as  a  fact,  which  made  the  letter 
permissible,  it  must  be  looked  upon  simply 
as  an  appeal  to  the  See  of  Peter.  And  in 
order  to  settle  one's  mind  in  the  conviction, 
that  this  and  nothing  else  was  intended,  it 
will  be  sufficient  to  read  the  text  of  the  letter 
itself,  keeping  in  view  the  fact,  that  John 
the  Apostle  and  Evangelist  was  still  alive  at 
Ephesus.  Were  there  no  special  preroga- 
tives attaching  to  the  See  of  Rome,  what 
would  have  been  more  to  be  expected,  than 
an  appeal  of  the  faithful  presbyters  and 
people  at  Corinth  to  the  apostle  whom  Jesus 
loved.  There  is  no  reasonable  explanation 
of  the  Corinthians  overlooking  the  sole  sur- 
vivor of  the  Twelve,  save  that  Rome  was 
pre-eminent  in  authority.  Bishop  Coxe's 
explanation  of  the  action  of  the  Corinthians 
going  to  Rome  instead  of  to  Ephesus,  is  a 
geographical  one ;  for,  as  he  says, ' '  Rome  was 
of  easier  access.' '  Notwithstanding  the 
famous  road  system  of  the  empire,  which 
made  Rome  of  such  facile  access,  the  state- 
ment of  Dr.  Coxe  is  false;  and  as  a  reason 
it  is  childish.  The  voyage  across  the 
iEgaen  Sea  from  Corinth  to  Ephesus,  was  far 
shorter  than  the  voyage  over  portions   of 

i  Ep.  Clem,  ad  Romanos.     C.  I. 


PETER  AT  ROME— CLEMENT       7 

the  Mediterranean  and  up  the  Adriatic,  or 
around  by  the  west  coast  of  Italy.  If  it  were 
a  question  of  travel  by  land,  even  the  round- 
about route  from  Corinth,  up  through 
Greece,  Macedonia,  across  Thrace  and  down 
through  Asia-Minor,  to  the  seat  of  the  ven- 
erable apostle,  would  have  been  much 
shorter  than  any  conceivable  journey  to 
Rome. 

.Dr.  Coxe  maintains  that  there  is  textual 
evidence  that  the  epistle  was  the  result  of 
many  at  Rome  deliberating,  and  writing  as 
it  were  in  common.  Subsequently  he  flatly 
contradicts  himself,  by  admitting  the  Clem- 
entine authorship.  The  intelligent  perusal 
of  this  document  reveals  one  man  writing,  a 
man  conscious  of  authority,  a  man  meaning 
to  teach,  to  censure  sedition  in  the  Church, 
to  reprove  and  condemn  the  guilty,  and  to 
recall  them  to  the  path  of  righteousness. 
There  is  no  arrogant  display  of  prerogative 
— Clement  was  a  saint — but  the  humility 
discernible  in  the  letter  closely  resembles 
that  of  Paul,  a  humility  namely,  which  in 
no  way  minimized  apostolic  authority.  He 
upbraids  the  Corinthians  for  their  "envy, 
strife  and  sedition,  persecution  and  disorder, 
war  and  captivity.  The  worthless  have 
risen  against  those  worthy  of  respect  and 


8  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

honor,  those  of  no  reputation  against  the 
renowned,  the  foolish  against  the  wise,  the 
young  against  the  old.  Righteousness  and 
peace  have  departed  from  you.  Everyone 
abandons  the  fear  of  God.  ...  Ye 
therefore  who  are  guilty,  arousing  this  sedi- 
tion, submit  yourselves  to  the  presbyters, 
receive  the  correction  so  as  to  repent,  bend- 
ing the  knees  of  your  hearts.  Learn  to  be 
subject,  putting  away  the  proud  and  arro- 
gant self-confidence  of  your  tongues.  .  .  . 
Send  back  speedily  to  us  in  peace  and  with 
joy  these  our  messengers  .  .  .  that  they 
may  the  sooner  announce  to  us  the  peace  and 
harmony  we  so  earnestly  desire  and  long  for 
among  you,"  etc.  Are  these  the  expressions 
of  a  bishop  unconscious  of  any  special  au- 
thority, when  addressing  the  faithful  outside 
the  territorial  limits  of  his  diocese.  I  think 
not.  The  best  evidences  for  our  contention  1 
are  the  words  of  the  ancient  Pope  himself, 
without  reinforcement  of  any  pleading.  We 
may  fittingly  call  the  letter  of  Clement  the 
first  historic  exercise  of  the  Papal  preroga- 
tive in  the  Church.  It  is  not  surprising  to 
one  familiar  with  the  document,  to  read  these 
words  from  the  pen  of  Salmon,  who  can 
hardly    be    suspected    of    Papal    leanings: 

i  Ep.  ad  Rom.     Cap.  LVIII,  LIX. 


PETER  AT  SOME— CLEMENT        9 

"He  (Clement)  as  bishop  of  that  church 
which  was  founded  by  the  apostles  speaks 
authoritatively,  and  thus  shows  the  first  be- 
ginnings of  pontifical  authority."  *  The 
same  admission  is  made  by  one,  who,  though 
a  Protestant,  cannot  close  his  eyes  to  the 
Papal  character  of  the  letter.2  A  fact  of 
unquestionable  importance  in  this  connection 
is  the  profound  reverence  and  esteem  with 
which  this  letter  was  popularly  regarded. 
Eusebius  tells  us  that  "this  epistle  great 
and  admirable,  which  he  (Clement)  wrote  in 
the  name  of  the  church  at  Rome  to  the 
church  at  Corinth,  .  .  .  has  been  publicly 
read  in  many  churches,  both  in  old  times  and 
also  in  our  own  day. ' ' 3  "  Through  this  let- 
ter," says  the  erudite  Dr.  Shahan,  "more 
than  through  any  other  early  document,  the 
note  and  criterion  of  'apostolicity'  was  forced 
upon  the  churches.  The  Church  of  Rome 
has  earned  many  titles  to  the  gratitude  of 
mankind,  but  none  older  or  more  venerable 
than  this  first  authoritative  interpretation 
of  the  constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church."  4 

i  Introduc.  to  Study  of  N.  T.,  p.  646. 

2  Shaff  Creeds  of  Christendom.     Vol.  II,  p.  158. 

s  Hist.  Eccl.  III.  16. 

*  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  p.  101.  Dr.  Shahan  adds 
that  Clement's  decision  was  unasked  for.  This  is  not  ac- 
curate.    Corinth  appealed  to  Rome. 


CHAPTER  II 

IGNATIUS IREN^US 


"The  epistle  of  St.  Ignatius  to  the  Ro- 
mans," says  Dr.  Coxe,  "is  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  any  conception  on  his  part,  that 
Rome  was  the  residence  and  see  of  a  bishop, 
holding  any  other  than  friendly  relations 
with  himself.  .  .  .  Think  of  what  use 
would  have  been  made  of  it,  had  the  words 
he  addresses  to  the  Smyrneans  (cap.  viii),1 
to  strengthen  their  fidelity  to  Polycarp,  been 
found  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans,  especially, 
as  in  this  letter  we  first  find  the  use  of  the 
phrase  ' Catholic  Church'  in  patristic  writ- 
ings. ' ' 

It  is  difficult  to  grasp  how  the  foregoing 
note  could  be  written  by  a  man  acquainted 
with  the  Ignatian  letters.  A  careful  inspec- 
tion of  the  various  inscriptions  of  the  epis- 
tles to  the  Ephesians,  the  Magnesians,  the 
Trallians,  the  Philippians,  the  Philadel- 
phians  and  the  Smyrneans,  reveals  the  fact, 
that  they  are  almost  identical  one  with  an- 

i  Ep.  ad  Smyrn. 

10 


IGNATIUS— IREN^EUS  11 

other.  The  inscription  of  his  letter  to  the 
Romans  is  altogether  unique.  Before  study- 
ing it  in  some  detail,  it  would  be  well  for  the 
reader  to  remember,  that  Ignatius  neither  in 
this  nor  in  any  other  of  his  letters,  is  writ- 
ing upon  the  position  of  the  Roman  bishop. 
The  reference  which  he  makes  to  Rome's 
position  in  the  Church  is  incidental.  The 
following  is  a  literal  translation  of  part  of 
the  said  inscription:  "Ignatius,  who  is  also 
called  Theophorus,  to  the  Church,  which  is 
sanctified  and  enlightened  by  the  will  of  God, 
who  formed  all  things  that  are  according  to 
the  faith  and  love  of  Jesus  Christ  our  God 
and  Savior ;  the  Church  which  is  pre-eminent 
in  the  seat  of  the  region  of  the  Romans,  and 
which  is  worthy  of  God,  worthy  of  honor, 
worthy  of  the  highest  beatitude,  worthy  of 
praise,  worthy  of  credit,  worthy  of  being 
esteemed  as  most  holy,  and  which  presides 
over  the  congregation  of  charity."  Dr. 
Coxe  adopts  what  the  writer  regards  as  a 
weak  rendition  of  the  phrase  translated 
above  as,  "which  is  pre-eminent  in  the  seat 
of  the  region  of  the  Romans.' '  Cardinal 
Newman  renders  the  same  very  acceptably 
as  follows :  "Which  holds  the  dignity  of  the 
first  seat."     The  original  reads  as  follows: 

ii  77ns    kcu   TrpOKaOyjTaL  iv    tot<i>    Xopiov    pw/AaiW.  "      It 


12  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

should  be  observed  that  the  verb  7rpoKa%uu, 
according  to  all  lexicographers,  signifies  I 
rule,  I  am  pre-eminent,  I  protect,  I  defend, 
I  sit  in  the  first  place,  I  preside.  The  rendi- 
tion found  above,  "which  presides  over  the 
congregation  of  charity,"  is  from  the  Latin 
text,  "quae  coetui  caritatis  praesidet,"  as 
being  less  obscure  than  the  Greek,  which 
literally  turned  into  English,  would  mean 
"which  presides  over  love."  Since  then, 
Ignatius  refers  to  dignity  of  place,  pres- 
idency, pre-eminence,  solely  in  his  letter 
to  the  Eomans,  it  is  a  most  legitimate 
inference,  that  the  explanation  of  his 
reference  is  the  fact,  that  he  regarded 
Rome  as  the  center  of  ecclesiastical 
honor  and  jurisdiction.  By  the  "coetui 
caritatis"  must  be  understood  the  Universal 
Church,  for  surely  such  a  term  could  not 
have  been  meant  to  point  out  the  special  and 
distinguishing  character  of  the  diocese  of 
Rome,  when  all  the  churches  to  which  Igna- 
tius addresses  himself,  were  at  peace  and  in 
possession  of  the  "sacramentum  mutatis." 
In  the  course  of  this  short  epistle,  Ignatius 
is  careful  to  observe,  that  he  would  not  pre- 
sume to  lay  commands  upon  the  faithful  at 
Rome,  since  they  were  the  spiritual  progeny 
of  the  blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.     It 


IGNATIUS— IRENAEUS  13 

would  be  idle  to  lay  too  much  stress  upon 
this  bit  of  evidence  drawn  from  the  Ignatian 
letter,  but  such  as  it  is,  it  abundantly  proves 
the  falsehood  contained  in  the  note  of  Dr. 
Coxe. 

ii 
Students  of  early  Church  history  will  read- 
ily recall  the  fact,  that  during  the  Aurelian 
persecution,  Pothinus,  who  occupied  the  bish- 
opric of  Lyons,  sent  Irenaeus,  then  a  pres- 
byter of  the  same  diocese,  to  Eome,  with 
letters  to  Pope  Eleutherus,  concerning  the 
Montanist  heretics.  Dr.  Coxe  says  "that 
he  (Irenaeus)  had  the  mortification  of  find- 
ing the  Montanist  heresy  patronized  by  the 
Bishop  of  Rome."  He  adds  the  following 
gem:  "Let  it  be  noted  here,  that,  so  far 
from  being  ' mother  and  mistress'  of  even 
the  Western  Churches,  Rome  herself  is  a 
mission  of  the  Greeks;  .  .  .  Lyons 
checks  the  heretical  tendencies  of  the  Bishop 
at  Rome;  .  .  .  and  Latin  Christianity, 
when  it  begins  to  appear,  is  African,  not 
Roman.  It  is  strange  that  those  who  have 
recorded  this  great  historical  fact,  have  so 
little  perceived  its  bearings  upon  Roman 
pretensions  in  the  Middle  Ages  and  modern 
times."  1     We  must  refresh  the  reader  with 

iAnte-Nic.  Fathers.     Vol.  I,  p.  309. 


14  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

just  a  bit  more  of  Dr.  Coxe's  history  (?). 
"  It  is  a  striking  example  of  divine  economy, 
that  the  see  of  Rome  was  allowed  to  exhibit 
its  fallibility  at  this  time,  very  conspicuously, 
and  not  only  to  receive  the  rebukes  of 
Irenaeus,  but  to  accept  them  as  wholesome 
and  necessary;  so  that  the  heresy  of  Eleu- 
therus  and  the  spirit  of  Diotrephes  in  Vic- 
tor, have  enabled  reformers  ever  since,  even 
in  the  darkest  days  of  pontifical  despotism, 
to  testify  against  the  manifold  errors  pa- 
tronized by  Rome.  Hilary  and  other  Gal- 
licans  have  been  strengthened  by  the  exam- 
ple of  Irenaeus,  and  by  his  faithful  words  of 
reproof  and  exhortation,  to  resist  Rome, 
even  down  to  our  own  times."  1 

The  statement  Of  Dr.  Coxe  that  the  letters 
to  Eleutherus  which  Irenaeus  carried  to  Rome, 
were  "letters  of  remonstrance" 2  is  purely 
gratuitous.  It  has  not  the  merest  semblance 
of  historical  foundation.  The  same  is  abso- 
lutely true  of  his  statement  concerning  the 
heretical  leanings  of  Pope  Eleutherus.  It 
requires  an  abundance  of  blinding  charity, 
which  the  writer  never  hopes  to  possess,  to 
believe  Dr.  Coxe  honest,  after  reading  the 
above    quoted    notes.     The    introduction    of 

i  Aate-Nic.  Fathers,  Ibid.  310. 
2  Ibid.  309. 


IGNATIUS— IRENiEUS  15 

the  famous  letter  of  Pothinus  is  preserved 
to  us  by  Eusebius,  and  as  the  candid  reader 
will  observe,  it  has  all  the  requisite  charac- 
teristics of  a  letter  of  protest  to"  a  man — a 
bishop — suspected  of  nursing  heresy  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Church.  "We  pray,  Father 
Eleutherus,  that  you  may  rejoice  in  God  in 
all  things  and  always.  We  have  requested 
our  brother  and  comrade  to  carry  this  letter 
to  you,  and  we  beg  you  to  hold  him  in  es- 
teem, as  zealous  for  the  covenant  of  Christ. 
For  if  we  thought  that  office  could  confer 
righteousness  on  anyone,  we  should  com- 
mend him  to  you  among  the  first,  as  a  pres- 
byter of  the  Church  which  is  his  position/ '  l 
Apart  from  this  introduction,  the  letter  is 
entirely  lost,  and  there  is  a  serious  quarrel 
among  historical  critics,  concerning  the  trend 
of  the  same  document.  The  more  common 
view  among  scholars  is,  that  far  from  remon- 
strating with  Eleutherus  because  of  his  fa- 
voring the  Montanists,  the  Gallic  martyrs 
and  their  bishop  begged  Eleutherus  to  be 
kind  in  his  judgment  of  the  Montanists,  and 
by  allowing  them  the  fellowship  of  other 
Christians,  to  keep  peace  within  the  bosom 
of  the  Church.  There  is  very  little  in  the 
way  of  evidence  to  support  this  view.     The 

i  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  V.  5. 


16  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

statement  of  Eusebius,  that  the  Gallic  mar- 
tyrs sent  an  orthodox  1  epistle  to  Eleutherus, 
is  perhaps  sufficient  proof  that  the  letter 
from  Lyons  was  an  appeal  to  Rome  against 
any  toleration  of  the  Montanist  heresy. 
The  Montanists  appealed  to  the  See  of  Peter, 
and  we  may  assume  without  doing  violence 
to  history,  that  the  letter  of  the  Gallic  mar- 
tyrs was  a  counter  appeal.  This  letter  is 
called  by  Eusebius  vpeaPeia,  which  can  never 
mean  a  simple  communication,  much  less  a 
letter  of  reproach,  since  the  idea  of  rever- 
ence or  honor  is  always  included  in  the  word. 
Incidentally  we  may  remark,  that  this  very 
rrpevpeia,  indicates  thus  early  a  "looking 
up  to  Rome. ' ' 2  Had  Eleutherus  been  sus- 
pected of  leniency  toward  Montanism,  surely 
Eusebius  would  have  given  at  least  a  pass- 
ing notice  to  the  fact.  No  historian  suggests 
any  infidelity  on  the  part  of  that  Pope.  "We 
plead  guilty  to  not  wishing  to  regard  Dr. 
Coxe  in  the  capacity  of  historian.  I  have 
been  unable  to  discover  upon  what  ground 
Dr.  Coxe  declares  the  Roman  Church  to  have 
been  a  mission  of  the  Greeks  in  the  time  of 
Irenaeus.     The  reconciliation  of  such  a  posi- 

i  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  V.  3. 

2  Dr.  McGiffert's  notes  on  Euseb.,  V.  4,  are  of  value  la 
this  connection. 


IGNATIUS— IRENiEUS  17 

tion  of  the  Eoman  Church,  willi  the  excom- 
munication of  the  Eastern  Churches  by  Pope 
Victor,  is  a  task  that  no  one  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  the  period  would  dare  attempt. 
The  action  of  Victor  was  unquestionably 
wrong;  and  proceeded  as  much  perhaps 
from  an  impetuous  temper,  as  from  religious 
zeal.  The  time  of  celebrating  Easter  was 
far  too  trivial  a  circumstance,  about  which 
to  endanger  the  peace  of  the  Church.  The 
action  of  Irenaeus  after  he  had  succeeded 
Pothinus  in  the  see  of  Lyons,  in  admonish- 
ing the  Pope  of  the  consequences  of  his  ac- 
tion, was  just  and  proper.  There  was  no 
question  of  anything  save  a  disciplinary 
enactment.  The  poiver  of  Victor  was  not 
called  into  question,  and  history  tells  us  that 
he  not  merely  threatened  the  Eastern 
Churches  with  excommunication,  for  differ- 
ing with  the  West  in  the  matter  of  celebrat- 
ing the  paschal  fast  and  communion,  but 
that  he  actually  excommunicated  them.  This 
is  unmistakable  from  the  text  of  Eusebius: 

i  l  aKOivo)vr)TOv<s     7rdvTa<z     apSrjv     tovs     eKtL(T€     ava.Kr)pvTTU)V 

dBe\cf>6v<s . ' ' 1  I  cannot  see  how  these  words  can 
be  construed  into  a  mere  threat.  Their  literal 
and  obvious  meaning  is,  that  he  declared  all 
the  brethren  there  (in  the  dioceses  of  Asia) 

lEuseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  V.  24. 


18  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

wholly  (dpSrjv)  excommunicate.  The  historian 
Socrates  confirms  this  view.  "Victor 
Bishop  of  Rome,  under  the  influence  of  a 
very  ardent  zeal,  promulgated  a  sentence 
of  excommunication  against  the  Quartodeci- 
mans  in  Asia."1  The  bishops  who  found 
fault  with  the  rash  policy  of  Victor,  in  no 
wise  questioned  his  power,  for  as  says  Eu- 
sebius :  i '  They  begged  him  to  remember  the 
things  of  peace  and  of  fraternal  unity  and 
of  charity."*  There  was  an  unquestionable 
consciousness  on  the  part  of  Victor,  that  he 
had  an  eminent  right  to  demand  obedience 
of  the  Eastern  Churches.  His  act  of  excom- 
munication makes  this  clear,  and  the  fact 
that  his  authority,  though  criticised,  was  not 
disputed  even  by  the  severest  of  his  critics, 
is  I  think,  an  undeniable  proof  of  the  gen- 
eral recognition  of  Rome's  place  in  the 
Church.  To  admonish  a  superior  is  not  in- 
consistent with  full  recognition  of  his  power. 
The  advices  and  reproofs  administered  to 
Popes  by  a  St.  Bernard,  and  a  St.  Catherine 
of  Sienna,  at  times  when  the  Papacy  was  su- 
preme in  both  the  spiritual  and  temporal 
orders,  were  not  regarded  as  -questionings 
of  the  papal  prerogative. 

i  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  V.  22. 
2  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  V.  24. 


IGNATIUS— IREN^EUS  19 

Dr.  Ooxe  devotes  much  labor  to  an  attempt 
at  explaining  away  the  well-known  passage, 
found  in  the  third  book  of  the  treatise  of 
Irenaeus  against  the  various  heresies  of  his 
day.  "  Since  it  would  be  very  wearisome  in 
a  book  such  as  this,"  runs  the  passage,  "to 
enumerate  the  successions  of  all  the  churches, 
.  .  .  we  point  out  the  tradition  handed 
down  from  the  Apostles  of  the  greatest,  the 
most  ancient  and  universally  known  church 
established  at  Rome  by  the  two  most  glo- 
rious Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  For  because 
of  its  pre-eminent  authority,  it  is  necessary, 
that  every  church,  that  is,  the  faithful  every- 
where, should  resort  to  this  church,  in  which 
by  universal  consent,  the  apostolic  tradition 
has  been  preserved  unimpaired."  It  is  idle 
to  speculate  on  what  the  Greek  text  may 
have  been,  since  that  text  is  hopelessly  lost. 
The  Latin  is  clumsy,  and  distinctly  lacking 
in  classical  flavor.  "Ad  banc  enim  eccle- 
siam  propter  potiorem  principalitatem,  nec- 
esse  est  omnem  ecclesiam  convenire,  hoc  est, 
eos  qui  sunt  undique  fideles,  in  qua  semper 
ab  his,  qui  sunt  undique,  conservata  est  ea, 
quae  est  ab  Apostolis  traditio."  1  I  have  ven- 
tured to  render  "ab  his  qui  sunt  undique," 
"by  universal  consent.' '     I  have  not  found 

i  Iren.  Advers.  Haeres.  lib.  Ill,  Cap.  4. 


20  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

this  translation  anywhere  given,  yet  I  can 
see  no  injustice  to  the  text  in  making  this 
rendition.  The  sentence  would  be  undoubt- 
edly clearer,  by  the  omission  of  the  phrase 
in  question,  yet  it  is  found  in  every  codex. 
Independently  of  the  textual  difficulty  sug- 
gested by  these  few  words,  the  quotation 
taken  as  a  whole  can  mean  only  one  thing. 
It  is  a  simple  declaration  of  Rome's  pre- 
eminence— the  greatest  and  most  ancient 
church — a  declaration  that  Rome  is  the 
special  repository  of  apostolic  tradition ;  and 
a  declaration  finally  that  all  the  churches 
must  be  in  communion  with  the  see  of  Rome, 
in  order  to  share  in  the  "  sacramentuin 
mutatis." 

Let  us  attend  now  to  some  of  the  ingen- 
ious efforts  of  Dr.  Coxe.  The  translation 
of  the  passage  now  under  consideration,  as 
it  stands  in  the  text  edited  by  Dr.  Coxe,  is 
very  obscure.  He  repudiates  it,  and  fur- 
nishes another  with  an  interesting  but  ut- 
terly groundless  paraphrase.  "For  it  is 
necessary  for  every  Church  (that  is  to  say, 
the  faithful  from  all  parts)  to  meet  in  this 
Church,  on  account  of  the  superior  magis- 
tracy (of  the  Empire) ;  in  which  Church,  by 
those  who  are  from  all  places,  the  tradition 


IGNATIUS— IREN^US  21 

of  the  apostles  has  been  preserved. ' ' l  Thus 
Dr.  Coxe  turns  the  passage  of  Irenseus,  and 
I  fancy  that  he  breathed  more  easily  as  he 
finished  the  struggle.  "The  authors  of  the 
Latin  translation,"  he  says,  "may  have  de- 
signed the  ambiguity,  which  gives  the  ultra- 
montane party  an  apparent  advantage;  but 
it  is  an  advantage  which  disappears  as  soon 
as  it  is  examined,  and  hence  I  am  content  to 
take  it  as  it  stands.  .  .  .  The  Latin  text 
answers  every  purpose  of  the  author's  argu- 
ment, and  is  fatal  to  the  claims  of  the 
Papacy.  Let  me  recur ,  to  the  translation 
given  in  loco,  from  a  Roman  Catholic,  and 
this  will  be  seen  at  once.  For  he  thus  ren- 
ders it,  'In  this  Church,  ever,  by  those  who 
are  on  every  side,  has  been  preserved  that 
tradition  which  is  from  the  apostles.  For 
to  this  Church  on  account  of  the  more  potent 
principality  it  is  necessary  that  every 
Church  resort.'  The  greatness  of  Rome, 
that  is,  as  capital  of  the  Empire,  imports  to 
the  local  Church  a  superior  dignity.  .  .  . 
Everybody  visits  Rome;  hence  you  find 
there  faithful  witnesses  from  every  side; 
and  their  united  testimony  it  is,  which  pre- 
serves in  Rome  the  pure  apostolic  tradi- 
tion."2 

i  Ante-Nicene  Fathers.     Vol.   I,  p.  461. 

2  Ante-Nicene  Fathers.     Vol.  I,  pp.  460  &  461. 


22  THE  SEE  OF  PETEE 

Dr.  Coxe's  remark  about  the  designing 
proclivities  of  the  authors  of  the  Latin 
translation,  is  too  purely  gratuitous  to  de- 
serve any  notice  here.  The  translation  to 
which  he  refers  as  that  of  a  Roman  Catholic, 
is  the  rendition  of  Dupin — notoriously  sym- 
pathetic with  Gallicanism  and  largely  anti- 
papal — hence  not  representatively  Eoman 
Catholic.  Dupin  was  a  scholar  of  magnifi- 
cent attainments,  but  with  very  definite 
prejudices  in  an  anti-Roman  direction.  Not- 
withstanding all  that  may  be  said  against 
him  as  a  Catholic  witness,  however,  and  not- 
withstanding Dr.  Coxe  's  devotion  to  the  same 
great  scholar,  Dupin's  translation  of  the 
much  discussed  passage  of  Irenseus  gives  ab- 
solutely no  support  to  Dr.  Coxe's  position. 

"The  greatness  of  Rome,  that  is  as  capi- 
tal of  the  Empire,"  according  to  our  sa- 
gacious editor,  gave  the  local  church  an 
ecclesiastical  prominence.  The  center  of 
pagan  power  and  pagan  iniquity  lent  nothing 
of  prestige  to  the  local  ecclesiastical  author- 
ity. Ecclesiastical  dignity  and  power  do  not 
necessarily  follow  civil  prominence.  The 
see  of  Canterbury  was  always  superior  to 
that  of  London.  We  have  no  historical 
ground  for  supposing  that  there  was  such 
an  influx  of  visiting  Christians  to  Rome  at 


IGNATIUS— IREN^US  23 

the  time  of  Irenaeus,  as  Dr.  Coxe  states,  and 
(be  it  said  with  reverence)  there  were  rea- 
sons of  a  very  grave  character,  why  Chris- 
tians who  were  not  forced  to  go  there,  should 
carefully  remain  away.  The  Rome  of  the 
period  was  not  the  pleasantest  rendezvous 
for  the  faithful.  The  faith  was  kept  at 
Rome,  according  to  Dr.  Coxe  by  those  who 
came  there  from  all  quarters.  She  was  the 
mirror  of  the  Catholic  world,  according  to 
his  pleasant  way  of  putting  things,  but  she 
was  not  the  Sun  dispensing  her  own  light  to 
other  churches.  From  the  Doctor's  attitude, 
(had  it  any  foundation)  we  would  be  forced 
to  conclude,  first,  that  Rome  unlike  Alex- 
andria, Jerusalem,  Antioch  and  the  other 
primitive  sees,  required  for  the  maintenance 
of  orthodoxy  a  continuous  influx  of  faithful 
from  abroad.  Secondly,  her  foundation  by 
the  blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  who 
watered  with  their  blood  the  seed  they  had 
planted  there,  had  no  special  influence  in 
keeping  pure  the  burden  of  their  teaching. 
Thirdly,  that  the  terms  "greatest,  most  an- 
cient and  universally  known  Church, ' '  applied 
to  Rome  by  Irenaeus,  really  count  for  little 
or  nothing.  Lastly,  I  might  add  that  even 
the  visitors  in  their  turn  failed  to  keep  Rome 
in  proper  condition,  for  nobody  will  hazard 


24  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

the  assertion  that  they  grew  less  as  time 
went  on,  and  in  spite  of  their  increase,  Rome 
went  to  the  bad  anyhow.  All  this,  I  think, 
makes  evident  to  the  fair-minded  reader, 
that  the  ideas  of  Dr.  Coxe  upon  the  famous 
testimony  of  St.  Irenaeus,  had  no  reality  save 
as  they  floated  about  in  the  muddled  waters 
of  his  imagination. 

"Rome,"  says  Dr.  Coxe,  "takes  all  into 
her  power,  and  may  dictate  to  all  churches 
what  they  are  to  believe,  however  novel  or 
contrary  to  the  torrent  of  antiquity  in  the 
teachings  of  their  own  founders  and  great 
doctors  in  all  past  time. ' ' *  Hard  words 
these  indeed,  yet  not  surprisingly  so  from 
the  child  of  that  apostate  daughter  of  Rome. 
What  marvel  that  the  child  should  imitate 
the  mother.  And  yet  the  pity  of  it!  For 
that  mother  was  the  Church  of  an  Augustine, 
a  Lanfranc,  a  Dunstan,  an  Anselm  and  an 
a  Becket.  0,  the  pity  of  it,  that  in  her  apos- 
tasy such  darkness  o'erspread  the  land. 
"Jerusalem  hath  grievously  sinned,  and 
therefore  she  has  become  unstable;  all  that 
honored  her  have  despised  her  because  they 
have  seen  her  shame.  Her  fllthiness  is  upon 
her  feet  and  she  hath  not  remembered  her 

lAnte-Nicene  Fathers.     Vol.   I,  p.  461. 


IGNATIUS— IREN^EUS  25 

end."  1  Yes,  Rome  takes  all  into  her  power, 
and  by  her  embrace  gives  that  support,  which 
is  hers  by  Divine  commission  to  communi- 
cate: "Tu  aliquando  conversus,  confirma 
fratres  tuos."  She  takes  all  into  her  power, 
but  not  to  dictate  what  is  novel  or  contrary  to 
antiquity,  but  rather  to  preserve  intact  the 
deposit  of  Revelation  by  her  definitions,  to 
separate  the  wheat  from  the  cockle,  and  to 
protect  her  little  ones  from  being  "tossed 
to  and  fro,  carried  about  by  every  wind  of 
doctrine."  The  famous  text  of  Irenseus  to 
which  we  have  just  devoted  ourselves,  re- 
ceives a  striking  interpretation  and  empha- 
sis from  these  words  of  Augustine  of  Hippo. 
"From  the  dunghill  was  Peter  lifted  up  as 
was  Paul;  when  they  suffered  death  they 
were  held  in  contempt :  now,  the  earth  having 
been  enriched  by  them,  and  the  cross  of  the 
Church  springing  up,  behold,  all  that  is  noble 
and  princely  in  the  whole  world,  even  the 
emperor  himself,  cometh  to  Rome,  and 
whither  does  he  hasten?  to  the  temple  of 
the  emperor,  or  the  memorial  of  the  fisher- 
man?"2 

i  Lament  of  Jeremias.     Cap.  I. 
2  Aug.  in  Ps.  CXLI. 


CHAPTER  III 

TERTULLIAN  AND  ORIGEN 


Bishop  Coxe  introduces  us  to  the  study  of 
Tertullian  by  some  amazing  declarations. 
In  his  introductory  note  he  assures  us  that 
"at  the  close  of  the  second  century  the 
Church  in  Eome  was  an  inconsiderable 
though  prominent  member  of  the  great  fed- 
eration of  Christian  Churches,  which  has  its 
chief  seats  in  Alexandria  and  Antioch. ' ' * 
This  came  to  me  as  a  surprise.  Irenseus,  a 
contemporary  of  the  period  of  Eome 's  incon- 
siderableness,  tells  me  that  among  the 
churches,  Rome  is  "maxima,  antiquissima  et 
ab  omnibus  cognita.,,  Bishop  Coxe  of  the 
nineteenth  century  tells  me  that  the  Roman 
Church  of  the  time  had  little  or  no  distinc- 
tion. As  the  Bishop  has  not  earned  a  repu- 
tation for  fair  historical  discussion,  I  am  con- 
tent to  abide  by  the  word  of  St.  Irenseus. 

Refreshed  and  stimulated  by  this  flight, 
the   learned    Dr.    Coxe,    after    enumerating 

i  Ante-Nicene    Fathers.     Vol.  Ill,  p.  4. 

26 


TEETULLIAN— ORIGEN  27 

Tertullian,  Cyprian  and  Augustine  as  the 
great  founders  of  the  Carthaginian  school  of 
theology,  informs  us  that,  " Providentially' ' 
not  one  of  these  illustrious  doctors  died  in 
communion  with  the  Roman  See,  pure 
though  it  was  and  venerable  at  that  time."  l 
It  is  a  matter  of  history  that  Tertullian  died 
a  heretic,  in  communion  therefore  with  no 
orthodox  see.  There  is  no  possible  way  of 
ascertaining  whether  St.  Cyprian  died  in 
communion  with  Rome  or  not.  St.  Augustine 
thinks  it  probable  that  he  did.  It  is  a  char- 
acteristic piece  of  assurance  on  the  part  of 
Dr.  Coxe,  to  state  without  qualification  that 
he  did  not.  The  same  learned  Doctor's  dec- 
laration that  Augustine  died  out  of  the  Ro- 
man communion  is  unqualifiedly  false.  The 
fact  that  Cyprian  has  been  numbered  among 
the  saints,  and  has  been  honored  upon  our 
altars  for  so  many  centuries,  argues  a  strong 
probability  that  he  was  reunited  to  the  Holy 
See  before  his  martyrdom.  The  following 
extract  from  St.  Augustine's  letter  to  Vin- 
centius  2  is  of  both  interest  and  value  in  this 
connection.  "The  statement  that  Cyprian 
entertained  opinions  at  variance  with  those 
approved  by  the  constitution  and  practice 

i  Ante-Nicene  Fathers.     Vol.  Ill,  p.  4. 
2Ep.  XCIII. 


28  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

of  the  Church,  is  found,  not  in  canonical 
Scripture,  but  in  his  own  writings,  and  in 
those  of  a  Council ;  and  though  in  those  same 
writings  it  is  not  found,  that  he  corrected 
those  views,  it  is  by  no  means  an  unreason- 
able supposition  that  he  did  correct  them,  and 
this  fact  perhaps  may  have  been  suppressed 
by  those  who  were  too  much  pleased  with 
the  error  into  which  he  fell,  and  were  un- 
willing to  lose  the  patronage  of  so  great 
a  name.  At  the  same  time,  there  are  not 
wanting  some  who  maintain  that  Cyprian 
never  held  the  opinion  ascribed  to  him,  but 
that  this  was  simply  a  forgery  committed  by 
liars  in  his  name." 

Proceeding  with  his  introduction  Dr.  Coxe 
tells  us  that  the  " specialties' '  of  the  Angli- 
can Reformation  were  due  to  the  writings  of 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian.  The  ' '  specialty ' '  of 
the  English  Rebellion  against  the  authority 
of  the  Apostolic  Chair,  was  a  divorce  case 
of  a  particularly  shocking  character,  and  all 
the  special  pleading  and  poisoning  the  wells 
of  history,  that  are  possible,  will  never  elim- 
inate or  obscure  that  fact.  Nothing  was  far- 
ther from  the  minds  of  the  ecclesiastical  con- 
temporaries of  Henry  VIII,  at  the  initial 
stage  of  his  struggle  with  Rome,  than  the 
thought  of  building  up  a  theological  defense 


TERTULLIAN— ORIGEN  29 

of  Henry's  breach  of  the  unity  of  the  Church 
upon  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  as  bases.  The 
wretched  time-servers  who  wore  the  livery  of 
religion  at  that  ill-starred  period,  were  not 
so  much  concerned  with  the  theological  aspect 
of  the  case,  as  they  were  industrious  to  pan- 
der to  the  lusts  of  the  royal  brute,  ,  and 
thereby  save  their  unworthy  heads.  It  is 
not  amazing  that  scholars  devoted  to  the  de- 
fense of  Anglicanism  should  endeavor  to 
make  their  case  doctrinally  and  historically 
respectable ;  but  it  is  surely  astonishing,  that 
in  the  face  of  so  much  history,  men  of  intel- 
lectual credit,  should  endeavor  to  fabricate  a 
case  such  as  Dr.  Coxe  would  have  us  accept. 
Perhaps  the  best  refutation  of  Dr.  Coxe's 
theory  as  to  the  " specialties' '  of  the  English 
Eeformation  (so  miscalled),  is  seen  in  the 
thoroughly  Papal  character  of  Christianity 
in  England,  upon  the  eve  of  her  great  apos- 
tasy. The  following  words  from  a  work 
entitled  "Pilgrimage  of  Perfection' '  pub- 
lished in  1531,  and  said  by  the  author  Wil- 
liam Bond  a  priest,  to  be  profitable  to  all 
Christian  persons  to  read,  are  not  very  sug- 
gestive of  the  "  specialties' '  mentioned  above. 
"There  may  be  set  no  other  foundation  for 
the  Church,  but  only  that  which  is  put, 
namely,  Jesus  Christ.    It  is  certain,  since  it 


30  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

is  founded  on  the  Apostles,  as  our  Lord  said 
to  Peter,  'I  have  prayed  that  thy  faith  fail 
not.'  And  no  more  it  shall;  (for  as  St.  Cy- 
prian says),  the  Church  of  Rome  was  never 
yet  the  root  of  heresy.  This  Church  Ap- 
ostolic is  so  named  the  Church  of  Rome,  be- 
cause St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  who  under  God 
were  heads  and  princes  of  this  Church,  de- 
posited there  the  tabernacles  of  their  bodies, 
which  God  willed  should  be  buried  there  and 
rest  in  Rome,  and  that  should  be  the  chief 
see  in  the  world;  just  as  commonly  in  all 
other  places  the  chief  see  of  the  bishop,  is 
where  the  chief  saint  and  bishop  of  the  see 
is  buried.  By  this  you  may  know,  that  Christ 
is  the  head  of  the  Church,  and  our  Holy 
Father  the  Pope  is  Head  of  the  Church. 
Many,  because  they  know  not  this  mystery  of 
Holy  Scripture,  have  erred  and  fallen  into 
heresies,  in  denying  the  excellent  dignity  of 
our  Holy  Father  the  Pope  of  Rome. ' ' l 
Roger  Edgeworth,  a  noted  preacher  in  the 
time  of  Henry  VIII,  speaking  on  the  text: 
"Tu  vocaberis  Cephas/ '  says:  "  There 
are  as  well  texts  of  Holy  Scripture  and  pas- 
sages of  ancient  writers,  which  abundantly 
prove  the  primacy  of  the  Pope.'' 2    It  would 

i  Quoted  by  Dom  Gasquet.     Eve  of  Reformation,  pp.  74, 
75. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  75. 


TEETULLIAN— ORIGEN  31 

be  perfectly  idle  to  contend  that  the  preacher 
makes  reference  only  to  a  primacy  of  honor, 
— a  favorite  expression  with  Anglicans — for 
the  preacher,  as  is  thoroughly  clear  from 
the  context,  discusses  that  primacy  then  ac- 
knoivledged  in  England,  namely  one  of  juris- 
diction. We  have  another  magnificent  testi- 
mony from  the  pen  of  William  Powell,  who 
wrote  a  work  on  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope, 
just  after  Henry  VIII  had  published  his  fa- 
mous "Assertio  Septem  Sacramentorum. ' ' 
Powell's  book  was  published  by  Pynson  in 
London  in  1523.  Its  title  runs:  "Propug- 
naculum  Summi  Sacerdotii,  etc.,  contra  M. 
Lutherum."  Powell  assures  his  readers, 
that  he  had  submitted  his  work  to  the  most 
erudite  authority  at  Oxford  (eruditissimo 
Oxoniensium)  before  committing  it  to  the 
printer's  hands.  Whatever  else  may  have 
occupied  Powell's  mind,  we  may  be  perfectly 
sure  that  he  was  never  a  bit  conscious  of 
Dr.  Coxe's  "specialty"  theory. 

We  shall  in  due  time  allow  Cyprian  to 
speak  for  himself,  with  a  view  to  discover- 
ing any  sympathy  he  may  have  had  for  such  a 
movement  as  the  English  Reformation;  but 
now  we  must  devote  a  little  space  to  Tertul- 
lian.  Speaking  of  the  Apostles  as  the  di- 
vinely   appointed    transmitters    of    Christ's 


32  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

teaching  he  asks:  "Was  anything  withheld 
from  the  knowledge  of  Peter,  who  is  called 
'the  rock  upon  which  the  Church  should  be 
built ' ;  who  received  i  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven/  with  the  authority  'to  bind  and 
loose  in  heaven  and  upon  earth  'J"1  Again 
"He"  (Paul),  "as  he  himself  narrates,  went 
up  to  Jerusalem  for  the  purpose  of  seeing 
Peter,  because  of  his  office  no  doubt,  etc. ' ' 2 
Again  ' '  Though  you  think  that  heaven  is  still 
closed,  forget  not  that  the  Lord  left  here  to 
Peter,  and  through  him  to  the  Church,  the 
keys  of  it. ' '  3  Dr.  Coxe  together  with  a  num- 
ber of  his  coreligionists  allows  special  pre- 
rogatives to  Peter  (though  just  what  these 
prerogatives  were  it  is  difficult  to  discover), 
but  deny  them  to  his  successors.  Coxe  main- 
tains that  this  view  coincides  with  Ter- 
tullian  's.  Audiatur  Tertullianus : — * '  Come 
now,  you  who  would  indulge  a  better  curi- 
osity, if  you  would  apply  it  to  the  business 
of  your  salvation,  enumerate  the  apostolic 
churches,  in  which  the  very  chairs  of  the 
apostles  are  still  pre-eminent  in  their  places 
(suis  locis  praesident).  .  .  .  Achaia  is 
very  near  (there  you  find  Corinth).     Since 

i  Contra  Haereticos.     Cap.  XXII. 

2  Ibid.,  XXIII. 

3  Scarpiace  X. 


TERTULLIAN— ORIGEN  33 

you  are  not  very  distant  from  Macedonia 
you  have  Philippi :  there  also  are  the  Thessa- 
lonians.  Since  you  are  able  to  go  over  to 
Asia  you  reach  Ephesus.  Since  you  are 
near  to  Italy  you  have  Rome  from  which 
comes  to  us  the  very  authority  of  the  apostles 
themselves.  0,  happy  that  Church  into  which 
the  apostles  poured  all  their  doctrine  to- 
gether with  their  blood;  where  Peter  suffers 
a  passion  like  his  Lord's;  where  Paul  wins 
a  crown,  etc."  *  Why  does  Tertullian  accen- 
tuate the  fact  that  from  Rome  comes  to  us 
the  authority  of  the  Apostles  ?  The  Catholic 
Church  alone  furnishes  an  answer  to  this 
query.  "Pontifex  maximus,  episcopus  epis- 
coporum,"2  are  the  terms  which  he  applies 
to  the  incumbent  of  the  Roman  See. 
Why?  Dr.  Coxe  says  to  express  irony. 
It  is  true  that  he  is  severely  criticising  the 
Roman  Pontiff  for  his  decree  concerning  the 
readmission  of  certain  penitents  to  commu- 
nion. But  in  this  Victor  or  his  successor  was 
not  singular.  The  context  does  not  allow  Dr. 
Coxe's  interpretation.  Tertullian  by  these 
expressions  simply  designated  the  Pope  as 
the  Head  of  the  Church  and  therefore  the 
chief  bishop  of  Christendom.     What  Tertul- 

i  Contra  Haereticos  XXXVI. 
2  De  Modestia.     Cap.  I. 


34  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

lian  criticised  in  Victor  (or  his  successor) 
he  might  have  criticised  just  as  readily  in  any 
orthodox  bishop  in  the  Catholic  Church.  The 
merest  tyro  in  Ecclesiastical  History  knows, 
that  decrees  concerning  the  absolution  of 
penitents  were  by  no  means  confined  to  the 
promulgations  of  the  bishops  of  Rome. 
Bishop  Coxe  allows  in  this  connection  that 
Victor  (or  his  successor)  seemed  ambitious 
of  superiority  over  other  bishops.  This  ad- 
mission is  I  think  equivalent  to  saying  that 
he  was,  to  a  degree,  infected  with  popery. 

The  above  excerpts  from  the  ipsissima 
verba  of  Tertullian  though  brief  would  at  the 
present  day  form  sufficient  ground  for  sup- 
posing that  he  had  Papal  leanings.  Far  from 
forming  the  "  specialty "  of  the  English  Re- 
formers, the  Catholic  writings  of  Tertullian 
would  have  been  dangerous  for  the  heads  of 
their-  advocates.  The  insistence  upon  the 
Petrine  prerogatives,  and  the  maintenance  of 
the  pre-eminence  of  the  Roman  See  as  set 
forth  by  Tertullian,  would  have  been  ex- 
tremely risky  in  England,  while  the  erstwhile 
Defender  of  the  Seven  Sacraments  was  "re- 
forming ' '  the  Church  there. 


TERTULLIAN— ORIGEN  35 

ii 

Speaking  of  Origen's  frequent  use  of  the 
expression :  ' '  The  Teaching  of  the  Church, ' ' 
Dr.  Coxe  says :  "It  is  noteworthy  how  often 
our  author  uses  this  expression.  .  .  .  He 
asserts  'a  clearly  defined  teaching.'  He 
shows  what  the  Church's  teaching  'has  laid 
down.'  He  speaks  of  'the  faith  of  the 
Church '  and  this  as  something  accepted  by  all 
Christians,  recognized  as  orthodox  or  Cath- 
olics." !  The  admiration  of  Dr.  Coxe  for  'the 
well  defined  teaching,'  'the  dogmatic  laying 
down'  and  the  recognized  system  of  theolog- 
ical science,  is  curious,  since  in  that  sect  of 
which  he  was  a  member  there  is  so  little  that 
is  definite  in  theology,  and  so  much  latitude  is 
allowed  (or  assumed)  for  divergency  of  doc- 
trine. A  writer  who  can  hardly  be  accused 
of  bias,  in  his  study  of  Anglicanism,  very 
truly  says:  "It  is  very  difficult  to  expound 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England.  In 
its  three  parties,  it  contains  the  three  forms, 
under  which  Christianity  exists  in  the  world 
elsewhere  in  separate  sects.  The  High 
Church,  which  is  now  predominant  represents 
the  Church  idea,  and  is  essentially  to  be 
ranked  with  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches. 

i  Ante-Nic.  F.    Vol.  IV,  p.  382. 


36  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

The  Low  Church,  which  has  shrunk  very 
much  in  numbers  and  influence,  represents 
the  Scriptural  idea,  and  is  essentially  Protes- 
tant. The  Broad  Church  is  really  rationalis- 
tic, and  ranks  with  the  liberal  sects."  f  The 
ranking  of  even  the  High  Church  with  the 
Catholic  Church  is  only  of  a  very  qualified 
sort  to  be  sure,  but  with  this  modification  the 
author's  words  are  literally  true.  And  be  it 
well  remembered  these  various  forms  consti- 
tute one  communion.  The  idea  of  associat- 
ing definite  teaching  and  dogmatic  utterances 
of  an  authoritative  character,  with  such  a 
church  is  little  short  of  preposterous.  These 
words  do  not  overstate  the  case  a  jot  or  a 
tittle,  and  hence  it  is  that  so  many  earnest 
scholars  have  found  it  impossible  to  keep 
their  footing  in  the  English  Church.  Bishop 
Coxe  before  attempting  to  show  that  Angli- 
canism and  ante-Nicene  Christianity  are 
one,  should  have  essayed  the  task  (difficult 
enough  God  knows)  of  telling  us  just  what 
Anglicanism  is.  It  is  exactly  because  of  the 
value  of  those  expressions  in  Origen,  which 
aroused  the  admiration  of  Dr.  Coxe,  that 
"  there  is  an  utter  incongruity  (to  use  New- 
man's words)  between  Protestantism  and  his- 
torical Christianity,  whether  the  latter  be  re- 

iLyon,  Study  of  the  Sects,     p.  88. 


TERTULLIAN— ORIGEN  37 

garded  in  the  earlier  or  later  centuries. 
Protestantism  can  as  little  bear  its  ante-Ni- 
cene  as  its  post-Tridentine  period."1  Con- 
tinuing his  elucidations  on  Origen,  Dr.  Coxe 
emphasizes  the  prominence  of  Alexandria  as 
the  great  stronghold  of  orthodoxy — hinting 
that  the  faith  of  the  Church  received  its  au- 
thoritative expression,  before  the  Council  of 
Nice,  in  the  Egyptian  metropolis.  "Is  it  not 
clear,"  says  Dr.  Coxe,  "that  the  West  merely 
responded  Amen  to  what  Alexandria  had 
taught  from  the  beginning?  Is  not  the  evi- 
dence overwhelming  that  nothing  but  passive 
testimony  was  thus  far  heard  of  in  connection 
with  the  see  of  Rome?  If  the  6 teaching  of 
the  Church,'  then,  was  so  far  independent  of 
that  see  that  Christendom  neither  waited  for 
its  voice,  nor  recognized  it  as  of  any  excep- 
tional importance  in  the  definition  of  the  faith 
and  the  elimination  of  heresy,  is  it  not  evi- 
dent that  the  entire  fabric  of  the  Middle  Age 
polity  in  the  West  has  its  origin  in  times  and 
manners  widely  differing  from  the  Apostolic 
Age  and  that  of  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers  ?"  2 

1  may  state  after  the  most  unqualified  fash- 
ion, and  without  the  slightest  fear  of  success 

i  Newman,  Development  of  Christian  Doctrines.     Intro- 
due,  p.  8. 

2  Ante-Nicene  Fathers.     Vol.  IV,  p.  382. 


38  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

ful  contradiction,  that  Rome  never  responded 
to  any  doctrinal  teaching  proceeding  from 
Alexandria.  Dr.  Coxe's  statement  is  a 
plain  (and  to  the  student  of  Church  history) 
unmistakable  lie.  It  is  an  amazing  lie  (un- 
like most  others)  because  there  is  not  the 
merest  shred  of  historical  evidence  to  give  it 
even  an  apparent  support.  Was  it  "only 
passive  testimony"  that  was  heard  from 
Rome  when  Dionysius  the  Great  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria — that  much  vaunted  stronghold 
of  orthodoxy — was  called  to  account  by  Di- 
onysius, Bishop  of  Rome,  when  the  former 
was  suspected  of  heretical  leanings!  Far 
from  asserting  the  superiority  or  even  the 
equality  of  his  see,  when  compared  with  that 
into  which,  as  Tertullian  said:  "the  Apostles 
poured  all  their  doctrine  together  with  their 
blood,"  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  makes  am- 
ple apology  and  defense  to  his  namesake  in 
Rome,  Let  us  turn  to  St.  Athanasius  for 
an  account  of  the  episode.  "A  charge  had 
been  laid  before  the  Bishop  of  Rome  against 
the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  as  if  he  had  said 
that  the  Son  was  made,  etc.-  .  .  .  The 
synod  at  Rome  being  indignant,  Dionysius 
wrote  to  his  namesake.  The  latter  in  de- 
fense wrote  a  book  entitled  \  Refutation  and 
Defense.'  "     "My  letter,  as  I  said  before," 


TERTULLIAN— ORIGEN  39 

writes  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  to  Dionysius 
of  Rome,  "  owing  to  present  circumstances, 
I  am  unable  to  produce,  or  I  should  have  sent 
you  the  very  words  I  used,  or  rather  a  copy 
of  it  all ;  which  if  I  have  a  chance  I  still  will 
do. ' ' 1  If  the  teaching  of  the  Church  was  so 
far  independent  of  the  Roman  See,  that 
Christendom  neither  waited  for  its  voice  nor 
recognized  it  of  any  exceptional  importance, 
then  what  meaning  shall  we  attach  to  the 
words  of  Socrates  the  historian,  who  tells  us 
that  "the  churches  are  commanded  by  an  ec- 
clesiastical law  to  enact  no  ordinances  against 
the  mind  of  the  bishop  of  Rome. ' ' 2  Zozomen 
puts  the  matter  even  more  strongly.  This 
historian  quotes  Pope  Julius  as  stating  to  the 
Eusebians  at  Antioch  that  "there  is  a  sacer- 
dotal law,  which  declares  that  whatever  is 
determined  against  the  judgment  of  the 
bishop  of  Rome  is  null  and  void."3  Let  it 
be  well  remembered  that  both  Zozomen  and 
Socrates  are  writing  events  which  took  place 
after  Nice  and  before  Sardica;  and  as  the 
canon  above  mentioned  is  not  found  among 
the  commonly  received  twenty  of  Nice,  it  is 
only  fair  to  conclude  the  Ante-nicene  char- 

i  Athan.     De  Synodis.  Cone.  Armin.  et  Seleuc.  Ill,  43. 
2  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  II,  C.  VIII. 
s  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  Ill,  C.  X. 


40  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

acter  of  the  enactment.  And  if  the  existence 
of  a  definite  written  law  in  the  case  is  called 
into  question,  then  the  testimony  of  the  two 
historians  above  mentioned  is  all  sufficient 
to  prove  a  generally  acknowledged  suprem- 
acy of  Rome,  the  more  so,  since  neither  Soc- 
rates nor  Zozomen  faintly  suggest  that  there 
was  any  controversy  concerning  the  acknowl- 
edgment itself. 

It  will  not  be  amiss  to  introduce  here  a  re- 
minder that  a  greater  incumbent  of  the  Alex- 
andrian See  than  Dionysius,  appealed  to  the 
central  authority  at  Rome  when  he  was  de- 
prived of  his  ecclesiastical  rights,  namely  St. 
Athanasius.  The  account  of  that  appeal  by 
Socrates  is  all  the  more  to  our  purpose  since 
it  includes  the  appeals  of  other  bishops. 
"Athanasius,  after  a  lengthened  journey,  at 
last  reached  Italy.  ...  At  the  same  time 
also  Paul,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  Ascle- 
pas  of  Gaza,  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  and  Lucius 
of  Adrianople,  having  been  accused  on  vari- 
ous charges,  and  expelled  from  their  various 
churches  arrived  at  the  imperial  city.  There 
each  laid  his  case  before  Julius  the  bishop  of 
Rome.  He  on  his  part,  by  reason  of  the 
Church  of  Rome's  special  privilege,  sent 
them  back  again  into  the  East,  fortifying 
them  with  commendatory  letters;  and  at  the 


TERTULLIAN— ORIGEN  41 

same  time  restored  to  each  his  own  place, 
and  sharply  rebuked  those  by  whom  they  had 
been  deposed.  Relying  upon  the  signature 
of  Bishop  Julius  the  bishops  departed  from 
Rome  and  again  took  possession  of  their  own 
churches/' 1  Julius  himself  writing  to  the 
Eusebians  at  Antioch,  declares  that  in 
their  synod  with  out  both  notifying  and  in- 
viting him,  they  had  neglected  to  observe  the 
Apostolic  Canons.2  Moreover  he  sets  forth 
most  clearly  the  ancient  prerogative  of  his 
see.  "Why  was  nothing  said  to  us  concern- 
ing the  Church  of  the  Alexandrians  in  partic- 
ular ?  Are  you  ignor-ant  that  the  custom  has 
been  for  word  to  be  sent  first  to  us,  and  then 
for  a  just  decision  to  be  sent  from  this  place! 
If  then  any  suspicion  rested  upon  the  bishop 
there,  notice  thereof  ought  to  have  been  sent 
to  the  Church  of  this  place.  .  .  .  "What 
we  have  received  from  the  holy  Apostle  Pe- 
ter, that  I  indicate  to  you. ' ' 3  The  contention 
that  the  Council  of  Sardica  conferred  upon 
the  Roman  bishop  the  prerogative  which  Ju- 
lius exercised  is  utterly  untenable,  since  the 
letter  of  Julius  from  which  we  have  quoted  is 
ascribed  by  no  authority  to  a  date  later  than 

iSoc.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  IT,  C.  15. 

2Athan.  Apol.  Cont.  Arian.     Cap.  II,  21. 

8Athan.  Apol.  Contra  Arian  II,  35. 


42  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

340  A.  D.,  whereas  the  Council  of  Sardica 
convened  not  earlier  than  343  A.  D.  Some 
place  it  as  late  as  347  A.  D.  Again  it  would 
have  been  ridiculous  for  Pope  Julius  to  have 
quoted  "a  custom,"  under  the  circumstances, 
unless  that  custom  was  well  known  and  gener- 
ally acknowledged.  It  is  significant  that 
though  the  bishops  gathered  together  at  An- 
tioch,  considered  that  Julius  had  treated  them 
with  scant  courtesy,  we  have  no  record  of 
their  having  disputed  his  claims. 

Having  refreshed  his  soul  with  this  burst 
of  enthusiasm  for  the  imaginary  pre-eminence 
of  Alexandria,  Dr.  Coxe,  who  is  now  bunch- 
ing his  hits  (if  I  may  dare  so  express  my- 
self), tells  us  that  at  the  Second  Ecu- 
menical Council  A.  D.  381  Jerusalem  is  called 
the  mother  of  all  the  churches.  "So  igno- 
rant,' '  says  he,  "were  the  Fathers  of  that 
date,  of  any  other  'Mother  Church,'  that  they 
address  this  very  statement  to  the  clergy  of 
Rome. "  1  It  is  perfectly  true  that  in  the 
Synodal  Epistle  of  the  Second  Ecumenical 
Council  which  was  held  at  Constantinople,  we 
find  Jerusalem  called  the  mother  of  all  the 
churches.  That  the  Fathers  wrote  this  sim- 
ply from  a  chronological  view-point  is  evi- 
denced from  the  facts,  that  Constantinople  is 

iAnte-Nic.  F.     IV,  p.  383. 


TERTULLIAN— ORIGEN  43 

mentioned  before  Jerusalem,  and  the  Syrian 
Church  is  named  ' '  the  most  ancient  and  truly 
apostolic.' '  The  same  Synodal  Letter  is  ad- 
dressed to  Pope  Damasus  and  his  colleagues 
at  Rome.  It  is  redolent  of  reverence  and 
regard  for  the  occupant  of  the  see  of  Rome, 
and  is  largely  apologetic  for  the  Fathers  of 
Constantinople  not  having  been  able  to  ac- 
cept the  invitation  extended  to  them  by  Da- 
masus, to  go  to  Rome  and  partake  in  the 
deliberations  of  a  synod  held  there.  In  order 
to  arrive  at  a  fuller  understanding  of  their 
attitude  toward  the  Apostolic  See,  we  must 
read  part  of  the  answer  of  Pope  Damasus  to 
the  bishops  assembled  at  the  Byzantine  Cap- 
ital. I  do  not  see  the  necessity  of  quoting 
from  the  Synodal  Letter  since  it  largely  em- 
bodies the  creed  of  the  Council,  and  is  aimed 
at  the  heresies  of  Arius,  Sabellius,  Paul  of 
Samosata,  Apollinarius  and  others.  The  fol- 
lowing extract  is  from  the  answer  of  Dama- 
sus: "Most  honorable  sons:  Since  your  love 
renders  to  the  Apostolic  See  the  reverence 
which  is  owing  to  it ;  you  exhibit  it  in  no  small 
measure  to  ourselves.  For  even  though  in 
the  holy  church  in  which  the  holy  apostle  sat i 

i  The  peculiar  construction  of  the  Greek  text  of  this 
sentence  leaves  the  latter  part  of  it  difficult  to  render  into 
English.  I  follow  the  translation  made  into  Latin  by 
Valesius. 


44  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

and  taught  us  bow  to  manage  the  helm  which 
has  been  given  to  our  care,  we  notwithstand- 
ing, confess  that  we  are  not  worthy  of  the 
honor.  .  .  .  Remain  on  solid  ground  firm 
and  steady  in  your  faith,  and  for  the  future 
allow  neither  your  clergy  nor  people  to  give 
ear  to  vain  words  and  useless  questions ;  for 
we  have  already  given  a  form  that  he  who 
declares  himself  a  Christian  may  preserve  it. 
.  .  .  Here  by  the  judgment  of  the  Apos- 
tolic See  in  the  presence  of  Peter  the  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  was  Timotheus  together  with 
his  teacher  Apollinarius  condemned.  . 
May  God  keep  you  sound,  most  honored 
sons. ' ' l  Is  it  not  curious  from  the  view- 
point of  Dr.  Coxe,  that  the  Fathers  of  the 
Council  did  not  take  exception  to  the  lofty 
tone  of  Damasus?  The  more  especially  since 
he  calls  the  bishops  assembled  at  Constanti- 
nople his  "sons." 

i  Theodoret,  lib.  V.  Cap.  X. 


CHAPTER  IV 

HIPPOLYTUS 

Dr.  Coxe  tells  us,  in  his  introduction  to  the 
fifth  volume  of  the  Fathers,  that  St.  Hip- 
polytus  shows  us  "to  what  a  state  of  feeble- 
ness and  humiliation  the  Roman  Church  had 
been  brought,  probably  by  neglect  of  preach- 
ing"; and  that  "Hippolytus  had  resisted 
Roman  bishops  as  heretics."  *  The  learned 
Doctor  further  informs  us  in  his  elucidation 
of  Hippolytus,  "that  after  the  Council  of 
Nice  the  Bishops  of  Rome  were  recognized 
as  patriarchs,  though  equals  among  brethren, 
and  nothing  more."  2 

Respecting  the  precious  bit  of  information 
vouchsafed  above  regarding  the  degraded 
condition  of  the  Roman  Church  in  the  day  of 
Hippolytus,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  "Refu- 
tation of  All  Heresies,"  the  work  in  which 
we  find  an  energetic  attack  upon  Popes  Ze- 
phyrinus  and  Callistus,  though  ascribed  to 
Hippolytus  is  not  unquestionably  one  of  his 

iAnte-Nic.  F.     Vol.  V,  preface. 
2Ante-Nic.  F.  Vol.  V,  p.   155. 

45 


46  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

productions.  Its  title  is  not  found  in- 
scribed upon  the  statue  of  Hippolytus  un- 
earthed near  the  Church  of  San  Lorenzo  in 
Rome  A.  D.  1551.  This  monument  repre- 
sents Hippolytus  in  a  sitting  posture,  and 
upon  the  cathedra,  we  find  a  list  of  the  Saint's 
writings.  I  may  add  here,  that  the  identity 
of  Hippolytus  himself  is  far  from  definitely 
settled.  He  is  traditionally  known  as  the 
bishop  of  Portus  near  Rome ;  and  though  the 
tradition  rests  on  a  respectable  foundation, 
it  is  not  above  suspicion.  Eusebius  mentions 
him  in  connection  with  Beryllus  bishop  of 
Bostra  in  Arabia,  and  says  that  he  "pre- 
sided over  another  church,"  '  but  adds  not  a 
syllable  of  further  information,  save  an  enu- 
meration of  his  works.  Eusebius  however 
ascribes  the  work  against   all   the  heresies 

"77700?  ob-ao-as  ras  diceo-eis"  to  Hippolytus.2       D6l- 

linger  gives  him  the  altogether  questionable 
distinction  of  being  the  first  anti-pope.  Now 
granting  for  the  moment,  that  the  "Refu- 
tation of  All  Heresies"  is  a  genuine  work 
of  Hippolytus,  and  that  he  was  a  bishop 
of  the  Roman  province,  it  would  follow  that 
he  was  a  schismatic,  since  we  have  not 
a   single   shred   of  historical  testimony  im- 

i  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.     VI,  20. 
2  Euseb.     Ibid.,  VI,  23. 


HIPPOLYTUS  47 

pugning  Zephyrinus  and  Callistus  as  bishops 
of  Rome.  Moreover  no  historian  or  Ante- 
nicene  writer  save  himself,  gives  Callistus 
an  evil  reputation.  Both  East  and  West  are 
perfectly  silent  on  the  ecclesiastical  difficul- 
ties of  the  Roman  See  of  the  period  as  they 
are  set  forth  by  Hippolytus.  The  following 
appreciation  of  the  case  from  the  pen  of  the 
learned  Dr.  McGiffert,  himself  an  Anglican, 
is  I  think  as  fair  a  view  of  the  subject  as  one 
could  wish  for.  "The  schism  which  has  left 
no  trace  in  the  writings  of  either  the  Western 
or  Eastern  Church,  cannot  have  been  a  seri- 
ous one.  Doubtless  Callistus  had  the  sup- 
port of  by  far  the  larger  portion  of  the 
Church,  and  the  opposition  of  Hippolytus 
never  amounted  to  anything  more  than  talk, 
and  was  never  strong  enough  to  enlist  or 
perhaps  even  attempt  to  enlist  the  support 
of  foreign  bishops.  Callistus  and  the  body 
of  the  Church  could  afford  to  leave  it  unno- 
ticed; and  after  Callistus'  death,  Hippolytus 
undoubtedly  returned  to  the  Church,  and  was 
gladly  received,  and  the  memory  of  his  brief 
schism  entirely  effaced."  1  Dr.  Coxe  makes 
a  great  demonstration  against  what  he  deli- 
cately terms  "the  Papal  imposture"  with  St. 

lEuseb.  Hist.  Eccl.     VI,  23  note.     (Transl.  by  Dr.  Ar- 
thur McGiffert.) 


48  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

Hippolytus  as  his  chief  support.  He  prom- 
ises to  repair  the  "infinite  damage  done  to 
history' '  and  "to  restore  scientific  precision" 
in  the  appreciation  of  the  position  of  the 
bishop  of  Rome.  We  have  a  right  to  expect 
great  things  from  him.  He  disappoints  us 
however,  and  reminds  one  of  lines  which  al- 
ways appeal  to  the  humorous  sense  of  a  col- 
lege lad: 

"Quid    dignum  tanto    feret    hie    promissor 

hiatu? 
Parturiunt  montes,  nascetur  ridiculus  mus." 

Rome  did  not  have  to  wait  for  the  august 
assembly  at  Nice  to  give  her  a  position  of 
honor  and  jurisdiction — not  a  mere  prece- 
dence; but  after  the  famous  council,  Rome's 
position  shone  out  in  a  clearer  and  more  un- 
mistakable light.  Dr.  Coxe's  statement 
therefore,  concerning  the  position  of  the 
ante-Nicene  popes  as  "mere  bishops,"  and 
their  post-Nicene  patriarchal  dignity  unac- 
companied with  any  special  jurisdiction,  is 
not  only  in  contradiction  to  known  history, 
but  is  an  expression  of  both  ignorant  and 
much-inflamed  prejudice.  We  find  in  the 
Arabic  canons  attributed  to  the  First  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  the  following  decree  (Canon  xxxix 
of  the  series):     "The  patriarch  must  con- 


HIPPOLYTUS  49 

sider  what  things  are  done  by  the  arch- 
bishops and  bishops  in  their  provinces;  and 
should  he  find  things  otherwise  than  is  meet 
and  proper,  he  should  change  and  dispose 
matters  as  he  shall  deem  proper,  for  they 
(the  bishops)  are  his  sons  and  he  is  the 
father  of  all,  .  .  .  just  as  he  who  occu- 
pies the  chair  of  Eome,  is  the  head  and  prince 
of  all  patriarchs ;  since  he  is  the  first,  as  was 
Peter,  to  whom  power  is  given  over  all  Chris- 
tian princes,  and  over  all  their  peoples,  as 
he  who  is  the  Vicar  of  Christ  our  Lord,  over 
all  peoples  and  over  the  whole  Christian 
Church,  and  whoever  shall  gainsay  this  is 
excommunicated  by  the  Synod. 9fl  I  am  per- 
fectly aware  that  there  has  been  a  very  long 
and  as  yet  unsettled  controversy,  as  to  the 
exact  number  of  canons  promulgated  by  the 
Council  of  Nice.  I  am  aware  also  that  per- 
haps the  more  critical  view  seems  to  point  to 
only  twenty  canons,  whereas  the  Arabic  man- 
uscript translated  into  Latin  by  Father  Eo- 
manus  S.  J.  points  to  eighty.  The  an- 
tiquity of  the  Arabic  MS.  however  is  not  to 
be  called  into  question,  and  the  fact  that  it 
proceeds  from  an  oriental  source,  makes  it 
valuable  in  this  connection.    Abraham  Echel- 

i  Labbe  &  Cossart  Concilia.     Tom.  II,  Coll.  291  —  Transl. 
by  Romanus,  S.J. 


50  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

lensis,  a  scholarly  Maronite,  made  a  pro- 
found study  of  the  Arabic  canons  and  in 
1645,  published  a  Latin  translation  of  them. 
His  arrangement  differs  somewhat  from  that 
of  Father  Romanus  the  erudite  Jesuit,  who 
made  his  translation  from  a  Vatican  MS., 
which  was  bought  for  it  probably  by  the 
famous  Asseman  from  the  Coptic  Patriarch 
John.  The  following  is  a  translation  from 
the  Latin  of  Abraham  Echellensis  (Canon 
xxxvii  of  his  collection).  " There  shall  be 
only  four  patriarchs  in  the  whole  world,  just 
as  there  were  four  writers  of  the  Gospel. 
.  .  .  And  there  shall  be  over  them  as  head 
and  prince,  the  lord  of  the  see  of  the  Divine 
Peter  at  Rome,  according  as  was  commanded 
by  the  Apostles.' '  The  Council  of  Sardica 
was  held  probably  in  344,  certainly  not  later 
than  347.  Its  canons  were  accepted  by  the 
Greeks  as  ecumenical,  and  are  by  them  still 
so  regarded.  The  fourth  canon  of  said  coun- 
cil is  as  follows  (from  the  Greek) :  "Bishop 
Gaudentius  said:  If  it  appears  well  to  you, 
it  behooves  us  to  add  to  this  enactment  full 
of  unquestionable  love,  which  thou  hast  pro- 
nounced, that,  if  any  bishop  be  deprived  of 
his  seat  by  the  judgment  of  (these)  neighbor- 
ing bishops,  and  set  forth  that  he  has  new 
cause  in  defense,  a  new  bishop  shall  not  be 


HIPPOLYTUS  51 

established  in  his  see,  unless  the  bishop  of 
Eome  judge  and  render  a  decision  as  to  this." 
Canon  third  of  this  same  council  is  the  same 
proposition  addressed  to  the  Fathers  of  Sar- 
dica  by  the  president  of  the  council,  Hosius. 
Canon  fifth  is  simply  a  conciliar  ratification 
of  the  same.  The  contention  that  Sardica 
granted  to  Rome  what  she  did  not  possess 
before  is  groundless.  The  history  of  ap- 
peals to  Rome  in  the  ante-Nicene  period 
proves  this,  as  do  also  the  facts  that  Atha- 
nasius  of  Alexandria  and  Paul  of  Constan- 
tinople together  with  other  bishops  as  we 
have  seen  above,  appealed  to  Rome  before 
the  Council  of  Sardica  was  convened,  and 
were  restored  to  their  respective  sees  by  the 
authority  of  the  Pope. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  Dr.  Coxe  has  the 
temerity  to  state,  that  after  the  Council  of 
Nice  the  Roman  patriarch  was  regarded  as 
an  equal  among  brethren.  He  tells  us  that 
Gregory  the  Great  had  little  patience  with 
such  a  title  as  "universal  bishop,' '  and  that 
the  same  blessed  Pope  looked  upon  its  as- 
sumption as  an  expression  of  "intolerable 
pride.' '  This  is  perfectly  true,  but  that  the 
same  Gregory  was  thoroughly  imbued  with 
the  correct  notion  of  his  own  high  office,  as 
bishop  of  Rome  none  who  know  aught  of  his 


52  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

history  will  presume  to  deny.  No  Pope  as- 
sumes the  title  of  "universal  bishop."  The 
Papacy  cannot  annul  the  episcopate,  which 
is  equally  of  divine  origin.  The  rights  and 
prerogatives  of  the  other  Apostles  are  not 
sacrificed  upon  the  altar  of  Peter's  honor  and 
jurisdiction.  This  was  the  idea  of  the  great 
St.  Gregory.  His  own  words  are  the  best 
testimony  as  to  how  he  looked  upon  the  See 
of  the  Fisherman.  In  his  epistle  to  John 
Bishop  of  Syracuse,  St.  Gregory  says,  "The 
Byzantine  primate  had  been  accused  on  some 
charge,  and  the  most  pious  Emperor  wished 
him  to  be  judged  by  us,  according  to  canonical 
ordinance.  .  .  .  As  to  his  saying  that  he 
is  subject  to  the  Apostolic  See ;  if  any  fault  is 
found  in  bishops,  I  know  not  what  bishop  is 
not  subject  to  it."  1  No  mediaeval  Pope  ever 
said  more  than  this.  Whatever  Gregory's 
views  were  as  to  the  title  of  "universal 
bishop, ' '  he  certainly  never  favored  any  min- 
imizing of  the  prerogative  of  his  see.  Dr. 
Coxe  informs  us  in  this  connection  that  Nich- 
olas I  (A.  D.  858)  was  the  first  "pope"  in 
the  "Tridentine  sense."  Herein  Coxe  has 
the  merit  of  unquestionable  originality,  and 
Nicholas  was  bravely  progressive — just 
about  nine  hundred  years  ahead  of  his  time. 

i  Greg.  Ep.  LIX. 


HIPPOLYTUS  53 

Dr.  Coxe  is  angry  nearly  always,  but  occa- 
sionally (though  unconsciously)  he  will  in- 
ject a  drop  of  humor  into  his  wrathful  work. 
Can  the  reader  imagine  the  creation  of  the 
papal  power  three  hundred  years  after  Leo 
had  hurled  back  to  Chalcedon  the  famous 
twenty-eighth  canon;  three  hundred  years 
after  the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon  had  cried  out, 
" Peter  hath  spoken  through  Leo." 

In  his  tenth  elucidation  of  Hippolytus  Dr. 
Coxe  tells  us,  that  the  Vatican  definition  of 
Papal  Infallibility  clothes  the  "errors  of  Cal- 
listus  and  Zephyrinus  with  infallibility."1 
As  there  is  no  historical  evidence  of  an  un- 
questionable character,  that  either  of  the 
above  named  popes  ever  taught  anything  sub- 
versive to  either  faith  or  morals,  and  as  it  is 
certain  that  neither  of  them  defined  anything, 
we  need  waste  no  time  in  further  disposing 
of  Dr.  Coxe's  statement.  This  is  not  the 
place  to  discuss  the  personal  record  of  Cal- 
listus  before  he  became  an  ecclesiastic.  From 
the  account  given  by  Hippolytus  (on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  "Refutation  of  All  Here- 
sies" is  a  genuine  work  of  the  saint),  Cal- 
listus  was  a  very  interesting  sinner  before 
conversion ;  but  we  have  seen  that  Hippolytus 
himself     was     not     above     suspicion.      Dr. 

iVol.  V,  p.  158. 


54  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

Wordsworth's  "St.  Hippolytus  and  the  See 
of  Rome,"  a  work  upon  which  Dr.  Coxe  so 
heavily  leaned,  is  a  book  of  most  patent  bias 
and  misreading  of  history.  The  author  cre- 
ates out  of  the  "Refutation  of  All  Heresies" 
and  the  abundance  of  his  own  prejudices,  a 
structure  against  the  Papacy,  as  flimsy  as 
the  unsubstantial  fabric  of  a  dream.  It  may 
not  be  out  of  place  here  to  observe  that  Dr. 
Coxe  is  wont  to  speak  so  feelingly  of  the 
"Great  Eastern  Church."  Does  he  imagine 
for  a  moment,  that  the  schismatical  churches 
of  the  East  regard  his  communion  in  any 
light  save  that  of  an  heretical  sect?  Is  he 
alive  to  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Orient 
regarding  the  Seven  Sacraments,  the  Sacri- 
fice of  the  Mass,  the  practice  of  Confession, 
devotion  to  the  Blessed  Mother  of  God,  and 
the  Saints,  the  veneration  of  holy  relics  and 
sacred  images,  and  the  profession  of  mo- 
nastic vows?  Where  in  God's  name  is  the 
foundation  of  the  professed  sympathy  of 
Englishmen  for  the  Greek  Church,  which 
turns  from  England's  approaches  with  cold 
disregard,  and  shows  her  practical  view  of 
Anglican  pretensions  by  refusing  to  regard 
as  valid  ministrations,  the  pseudo-sacra- 
mental acts  of  her  clergy.  Most  of  my  read- 
ers are  familiar  with  the  details  of  a  case 


HIPPOLYTUS  55 

very  much  in  point  in  which  a  recent  convert 
from  the  ranks  of  the  Episcopal  ministry, 
was  rebaptized  and  reordained  by  a  Russian 
bishop.1 

There  is  a  very  large  consolation,  however, 
in  contemplating  the  fact,  that  England  is 
not  without  a  real  hierarchy  and  a  valid 
priesthood.  Where  heresy  and  persecution 
of  the  elect  reigned  supreme,  again  is  offered 
the  " Clean  Oblation'';  again  the  faithful 
kneel  at  the  feet  of  God's  minister  in  that 
"little  house  of  grief,"  to  find  remission  of 
their  sins;  again  the  psalmody  is  heard  in 
cloistered  choirs;  and  again  the  staff  of 
Christendom's  White  Shepherd  is  acknowl- 
edged— for  God  is  more  truly  known.  "Can- 
terbury has  gone  its  way,  and  York  is  gone, 
and  Durham  is  gone,  and  Winchester  is  gone. 
It  was  sore  to  part  with  them.  We  clung  to 
the  vision  of  past  greatness,  and  would  not 
believe  it  could  come  to  naught;  but  the 
Church  in  England  has  died,  and  the  Church 
lives  again.  Westminster  and  Nottingham, 
Beverly  and  Hexham,  Northhampton  and 
Shrewsbury,  if  the  world  lasts,  shall  be  names 
as  musical  to  the  ear,  as  stirring  to  the  heart, 
as  the  glories  we  have  lost ;  and  Saints  shall 
rise  out  of  them,  if  God  so  will,  and  Doctors 

iThe  case  of  Dr.  Irvine. 


56  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

shall  once  again  give  the  law  to  Israel,  and 
Preachers  call  to  penance  and  to  justice,  as 
at  the  beginning. ' ' 1 

Before  taking  leave  of  Dr.  Coxe's  elucida- 
tions on  St.  Hippolytus  we  must  notice  a 
footnote  found  among  them  which  runs  as 
follows:  "In  England  the  (Papal)  ' suprem- 
acy' was  never  acknowledged,  nor  in  France 
till  now. ' ' 2  The  reference  to  France  may 
be  dismissed  without  notice,  since  it  merits 
none.  The  brazen  effrontery  of  such  a  dec- 
laration is  its  best  commentary.  With  re- 
spect to  England's  acknowledgment  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  Roman  See,  we  are  able  to 
bring  forth  striking  testimonies.  We  can 
hardly  do  better  than  follow  here  the  guid- 
ance of  the  erudite  Abbot  Gasquet.3  Having 
for  his  object  the  proper  definition  of  the 
Pope's  position  in  England  on  the  eve  of  the 
Reformation,  Dom  Gasquet  says,  "We,  nat- 
urally turn  to  the  works  of  Sir  Thomas 
More  for  evidence  of  the  teaching  as  to  the 
Pope's  position  at  this  period;  and  his  testi- 
mony is  both  abundant  and  definite.  Thus  in 
the  second  book  of  his  "Dyalogue,"  written 

i  Sermons  on  Various  Occasions.  "The  Second  Spring." 
— Newman. 

2  Vol.  V,  155. 

3  "On  the  Eve  of  the  Reformation/'  pp.  77  et  seq. 


HIPPOLYTUS  57 

in  1528,  arguing  that  there  must  be  unity  in 
the  Church  of  Christ,  he  points  out  that  the 
effect  of  Lutheranism,  has  been  to  breed  di- 
versity of  faith  and  practice.  ' '  Though  they 
began  so  late,"  he  writes,  "yet  there  are  not 
only  as  many  sects  almost  as  men,  but  also 
the  masters  themselves  change  their  minds 
and  opinions  every  day.  Bohemia  is  also  in 
the  same  case ;  one  faith  in  the  town,  another 
in  the  field;  one  in  Prague,  another  in  the 
next  town ;  and  yet  in  Prague  itself,  one  faith 
in  one  street,  another  in  the  next.  And  yet 
all  these  acknowledge  that  they  cannot  have 
the  Sacraments  ministered,  but  by  such 
priests  as  are  made  by  the  authority  derived 
and  conveyed  from  the  Pope,  who  is,  under 
Christ,  Vicar  and  head  of  our  Church. ' ' * 
' '  The  Church  has  begun  with  Christ,  and  has 
had  Him  for  its  head,  and  St.  Peter  His  Vicar 
after  Him,  and  the  head  under  Him ;  and  al- 
ways since  the  successors  of  him  continu- 
ally. ' ' 2  We  find  the  following  extract  in  a 
sermon  preached  at  a  synod  of  archbishops 
and  bishops  held  at  Westminster  in  1527. 
The  discourse  is  directed  against  the  errors 
of  Luther,  and  incidentally  touches  upon  the 

i  English  Works,  p.  171. 
2  Ibid.,  p.  185. 


58  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

affliction  brought  upon  the  pope  by  Luther's 
rebellion.  Bishop  Longland  is  the  preacher. 
' 'Shall  we  not  mourn/ '  he  cries,  "for  the 
evil  life  of  the  chief  Church  (of  Christen- 
dom) ?  Shall  we  not  beseech  God  for  the  lib- 
eration of  the  primate  and  chief  ruler  of  the 
Church  ?  Let  us  pray  then ;  let  us  pray  that 
through  our  prayers  we  may  be  heard.  Let 
us  implore  freedom  for  our  mother,  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  and  the  liberty,  so  necessary  for 
the  Christian  religion,  of  our  chief  Father 
on  earth — the  Pope. ' ' * 

When  Dr.  John  Clark,  the  English  am- 
bassador in  Eome,  presented  to  Leo  X  in 
open  consistory  the  famous  "Assertio  Sep- 
tem  Sacramentorum"  of  Henry  VIII,  he 
said,  "that  in  the  mind  of  his  sovereign  the 
attack  on  the  Pope  by  Luther  was  an  attack 
upon  a  divinely  established  order.' '  He  pro- 
tested in  the  name  of  Henry,  "the  devotion 
and  veneration  of  the  king  toward  the  Pope 
and  his  most  Holy  See."  "Luther  had  de- 
clared war,"  said  the  minister,  "not  only 
against  your  Holiness,  but  also  against  your 
office,  .  .  .  and  against  that  Eock,  estab- 
lished by  God  Himself.' '  "England,"  con- 
tinued the  speaker,  "has  never  been  behind 
other  nations,  in  the  worship  of  God  and  the 

iJoannis  Longlondi  Tres  Condones    (R.  Pynson).  f.  45. 


HIPPOLYTUS  59 

Christian  faith,  and  in  obedience  to  the  So- 
man Church. ' ' * 

Such  testimonies  as  the  above  leave  no 
doubt  in  a  fair  mind  as  to  the  relation  be- 
tween the  Holy  See  and  England  in  pre- 
reformation  times;  and  they  prove  that 
Bishop  Coxe  was  either  ignorant  of  a  great 
deal  of  history,  or  unscrupulous  in  his  dealing 
with  it. 

i  Assertion    of    the    Seven    Sacraments    against    Luther 
(Transl.  by  J.  W.,  1687),  f.  a.  i. 


CHAPTER  V 

ST.   CYPRIAN 

For  the  sake  of  convenient  arrangement, 
I  have  thought  it  fitting,  to  order  in  a  set  of 
propositions  Dr.  Coxe's  introduction  to  the 
works  of  St.  Cyprian,  and  then  to  refute  them 
separately.  Dr.  Coxe  clearly  felt  the  diffi- 
culty of  handling  the  case  of  Cyprian  and  the 
Holy  See,  but  being  a  man  inseparably 
wedded  to  his  errors,  essentially  Protestant, 
and  incorrigibly  anti-Roman  he  bravely  faces 
the  task,  with  what  result  we  shall  shortly 
see.  His  introduction  to  Cyprian  may  be 
aptly  summed  up  in  the  following  state- 
ments : 

1.  Nothing  can  be  more  delusive  than  the 
idea,  that  "the  mediaeval  system  derives  any 
support  from  Cyprian's  theory  of  the  episco- 
pate or  Church  organization.  His  was  the 
system  of  universal  parity  of  bishops.' ' 

2.  The  "terrible  schism  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury," placed  the  Latin  Churches  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  "Forged  Decretals." 

3.  The  primacy  of  which  Cyprian  was  an 

60 


CYPRIAN  61 

early  promoter,  had  to  be  entirely  destroyed 
by  decretalism,  before  the  Papacy  could  ex- 
ist. Gregory-  the  Great  stood  upon  the  Cy- 
prianic  base,  when  he  pronounced  the  author 
of  a  scheme  for  a  "universal  bishopric' '  to 
be  a  "forerunner  of  Antichrist. ' ' 

4.  If  the  adherents  of  American  Romanism 
ever  "fully  understand  this  great  Cartha- 
ginian Father,' '  a  "glorious  reformation  of 
this  alien  religion, ' '  will  be  the  result. 

We  can  readily  afford  to  ignore  the  insult 
which  the  words  "mediaeval  system"  thinly 
veil.  There  is  too  much  resplendent  testi- 
mony in  the  history  of  the  first  six  centuries 
of  our  era,  in  favor  of  the  Papacy  for  us  to 
bother  about  the  hard  sayings  of  a  man  who 
(apparently  at  least),  has  endeavored  per- 
sistently to  close  his  eyes  to  the  light.  The 
best  refutation  of  Dr.  Coxe's  first  proposi- 
tion, is  found  in  the  words  of  Cyprian  him- 
self. Let  the  ancient  saint  and  martyr  speak 
then — we  shall  listen  and  then  judge. 

Pope  Cornelius  complained  that  he  was  ig- 
nored in  the  matter  of  sending  him  informa- 
tion about  troublous  affairs  at  Adrumetum — 
the  peace  of  the  Church  having  been  disturbed 
there.  Cyprian,  who  with  other  bishops,  and 
a  number  of  presbyters,  had  gathered  at  Ad- 
rumetum to  remedy  the  difficulties,  on  becom- 


62  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

ing  aware  of  Cornelius'  displeasure,  wrote 
him  an  apologetic  letter.  The  following  ex- 
tracts from  the  same  need  no  commentary. 
"Cyprian  to  Cornelius,  etc.  ...  I  have 
read  your  letters,  dearest  brother,  .  .  . 
in  which  I  saw  that  you  were  annoyed.' ' 
(Because  he  had  not  been  furnished  with  the 
aforesaid  information.)  "In  respect  to  which 
I  desire  you  to  know  and  certainly  to  believe, 
that  it  was  not  done  from  any  thought- 
lessness or  disrespect."  .  .  .  "We  fur- 
nish every  person  who  sails  from  here  to  you 
with  directions  that  they  may  sail  without 
giving  offense.  We  have  insisted  with  them, 
I  would  have  you  know,  that  they  acknowl- 
edge and  hold  fast  to  the  root  and  matrix  of 
the  Church  Catholic.  .  .  .  Lest  a  schism 
made  in  the  city,  should  confuse  the  minds 
of  the  absent  with  uncertain  opinions,  we  de- 
cided .  .  .  that  letters  should  be  sent  you 
by  all  who  were  placed  anywhere  in  the  prov- 
ince, as  in  fact  is  done,  so  that  all  of  our  col- 
leagues might  both  firmly  approve  and  hold 
to  you  and  your  communion,  that  is  to  both 
the  unity  as  well  as  the  charity  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church."  l  " Communicationem  ejus,  id 
est  Catholicce  Ecclesice  unitatem,  pariter  et 
caritatem    probare    ac    tenere."      "Rome," 

i  Ep.  XLIV  ad  Cornel. 


CYPRIAN  63 

says  St.  Cyprian,  writing  of  the  sees  of  Rome 
and  Carthage  respectively,  "must  take  prece- 
dence of  Carthage,  by  reason  of  her  great- 
ness.1 In  his  letter  to  Antonianus  concern- 
ing the  case  between  Pope  Cornelius  and  the 
heretic  Novation,  he  says:  "You  wrote, 
moreover,  for  me  to  send  a  copy  of  those 
epistles  to  Cornelius  our  colleague,  so  that 
he  might  put  away  all  worry,  and  know  at 
once  that  you  held  communion  with  him,  that 
is  with  the  Catholic  Church/'2  Further  on 
in  the  same  letter  he  states  that  a  "large 
number  of  African  bishops  had  gathered  to- 
gether after  persecution,  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion of  readmitting  the  lapsed.  "And  lest, 
perhaps,' '  says  he,  "the  number  of  bishops  in 
Africa  might  not  seem  sufficient  (or  satis- 
factory), we  wrote  to  Rome,  to  Cornelius  our 
colleague  concerning  this  thing,  etc."  Why 
was  it  necessary  or  even  expedient  to  write 
to  Rome?  Did  not  Cyprian  believe  in  the 
universal  parity  of  bishops  1  Why  then  was 
it  proper  or  necessary  to  encourage  a  doubt 
as  to  the  insufficiency  of  the  "large  number' ' 
of  African  bishops,  and  to  settle  that  doubt 
by  an  appeal  to  Rome?  St.  Cyprian  has  an 
answer  for  us.  It  was  because  Cornelius  had 
reached  the  "pinnacle   (or  summit)   of  the 

iEp.  XLVII. 
aEp.  LI. 


64  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

priesthood,"  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  he 
held  ' i  the  place  of  Peter  l  and  the  grade  of 
the  sacerdotal  throne."2  Cyprian's  expla- 
nation of  schism,  found  in  another  letter  to 
the  same  Pope  is  very  much  ad  rem :  ' '  For 
neither  have  heresies  arisen  nor  have  schisms 
originated,  from  any  other  source,  than  from 
this,  that  God's  priest  is  not  obeyed;  nor  do 
they  reflect  that  for  the  time  being,  there  is 
one  person  who  is  priest  in  the  Church,  and 
for  the  time  judge  in  the  place  of  Christ, 
whom,  if,  according  to  the  divine  teaching,  all 
the  faithful  should  obey,  no  one  would  stir  up 
anything  against  the  congregation  of  priests, 
etc."3  Bishop  Coxe  explains  this  passage 
as  referring  to  the  supremacy  of  each  bishop 
in  his  own  see.4  Students  of  Church  History 
are  too  well  aware  of  the  fact,  that  such  a 
supremacy  carries  with  it  no  guarantee 
against  schism  to  be  led  captive  by  such  an 
interpretation.  The  passage  of  Cyprian's 
letter  to  Pope  Cornelius  stands  best  without 
comment.  " Peter,"  he  writes  in  that  same 
document,  "upon  whom  by  that  same  Lord 
the  Church  had  been  built,  speaking  one  for 
all,  and  answering  with  the  voice  of  the 
Church,  says,  Lord  to  whom  shall  we  go!" 

i  Ep.  LI.  3  Ep.  LIV. 

2  Ibid.  4  Vol.  V,  p.  340. 


CYPRIAN  65 

Explaining  to  Cornelius  why  he  had  not  writ- 
ten about  Fortunatus  the  pseudo-bishop  and 
his  supporters,  he  says:  "The  matter  was 
not  such  as  ought  immediately  and  with  haste 
to  be  brought  to  your  attention  as  if  it  were 
great  or  to  be  dreaded.  ...  I  did  not 
think  it  necessary  that  the  foolishness  of  he- 
retics should  be  hastily  and  urgently  brought 
before  you.  ...  It  was  determined  upon 
by  the  judgment  of  us  all  to  write  to  you, 
that  a  short  way  might  be  discovered  of  dis- 
sipating error  and  arriving  at  truth."1 
Toward  the  end  of  the  same  letter  describing 
to  Cornelius  what  he  regards  as  the  very 
acme  of  arrogance  on  the  part  of  Fortunatus 
and  his  abettors,  he  writes,  "After  such 
things  as  these,  they  still  dare — a  spurious 
bishop  having  been  elected  for  them  by  he- 
retics— to  set  sail  and  carry  letters  from 
schismatics  and  profane  persons  to  the  chair 
of  Peter,  and  to  the  principal  church,  whence 
sacerdotal  unity  has  taken  its  rise,  forgetting 
that  these  are  the  Eomans  whose  faith  the 
Apostle  praised,  and  to  whom  faithlessness 
can  have  no  access.' '  "Navigare  audent  ad 
Petri  cathedram  et  ad  Ecclesiam  principalem, 
unde  unitas  sacerdotalis  exorta  est ;  nee  cogi- 
tare  eos  esse  Romanos  quorum  fides  Apostolo 

i  Ep.  LIV. 


66  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

prccdicante  laudata  est,  ad  quos  perfidia 
habere  non  possit  accessum. ' ' x  I  can  readily 
fancy  how  poor  Dr.  Coxe's  heart  sank  when 
he  read  Cyprian's  fifty-fourth  letter;  and 
considering  the  task  he  had  set  for  himself, 
I  don't  wonder  a  bit.  I  may  remark  inci- 
dentally that  the  heretics  too  knew  of  Rome.'s 
position,  and  the  value  of  her  patronage. 

If  Dr.  Coxe's  notion,  that  Cyprian  held  the 
universal  parity  of  bishops,  be  true,  is  it  not 
a  bit  curious,  that  Cyprian  should  request 
Pope  Stephen  to  excommunicate  Marcion  the 
bishop  of  Aries!  "You  should  send  letters 
by  which  Marcion  being  excommunicated, 
etc."2  Making  reference  to  Peter's  humil- 
ity anent  the  controversy  between  the  Prince 
of  the  Apostles  and  Paul,  Cyprian  in  a  letter 
to  Quintus  a  bishop  in  Mauretania  writes: 
"For  neither  did  Peter  whom  the  Lord  chose 
first,  and  upon  whom  He  built  His  Church, 
when  Paul  argued  with  him  about  the  circum- 
cision, insolently  claim  anything  to  himself, 
nor  proudly  assume  anything,  so  as  to  declare 
that  he  held  the  primacy."  3 

When  Cyprian  and  his  colleagues  in  Africa 
had  held  their  famous  council,  to  deliberate 
upon  the  re-baptism  of  heretics  they  sent  the 

i  Ep.  LIV.  s  Ep.  LXX. 

2  Ep.  LXVI. 


CYPRIAN  67 

result  of  their  sessions  to  Stephen  for  ap- 
proval. There  is  no  controversy  upon  this 
point.  Stephen  was  clearly  conscious  of  his 
power,  as  head  of  the  Church,  when  he  con- 
demned and  annulled  their  main  proceeding 
with  his  well  known  "nil  innovetur.,,  Cy- 
prian's rebellion  against  the  papal  act  can 
never  invalidate  his  manifold  testimonies  re- 
garding the  See  of  Eome,  as  the  center  of 
unity,  the  "root  and  matrix' '  of  the  Church, 
and  the  seat  of  universal  jurisdiction.  Fir- 
millian  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia, 
who  sympathized  with  Cyprian  in  the  con- 
troversy, furnishes  us  with  valuable  testi- 
mony as  to  an  ante-Nicene  pope's  concept  of 
his  own  position  and  authority.  In  a  letter 
to  Cyprian,  Firmillian  uses  the  following  ex- 
pressions: "Stephen  who  so  brags  of  the 
place  of  his  bishopric,  insisting  upon  his  suc- 
cession from  Peter  on  whom  the  foundations 
of  the  Church  were  laid,  .  .  .  Stephen  who 
announces  that  he  holds  by  succession  the 
throne  of  Peter."  "They  who  are  at  Rome 
.  .  .  vainly  arrogate  to  themselves  the 
authority  of  the  apostles."  I  fear  that  Ste- 
phen was  very  much  of  a  Pope  in  the  "Tri- 
dentine  sense." 
Were  the  above  quotations  from  the  works 

*  Ep.  Firm  ad  Cyp.  in  oper.  Cyp.  inventa  LXXIV. 


68  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

of  St.  Cyprian  found  in  a  work  proceeding 
from  the  Anglican  source,  I  think  it  perfectly 
safe  to  say  that  the  author  would  be  pro- 
nounced— and  very  promptly — infected  with 
"Romanism."  I  conclude  from  the  afore- 
said quotations,  that  Cyprian  believed  Peter 
to  be  the  Rock  upon  which  Christ  built  His 
Church;  that  his  successors  at  Rome  were 
invested  with  a  primacy  not  simply  of  honor 
but  of  jurisdiction ;  and  that  only  on  the  sup- 
position of  such  an  attitude  toward  Rome  on 
the  part  of  Cyprian  can  we  understand  or 
explain,  his  deference  toward  the  Roman 
bishop  before  the  clash  with  Stephen,  his  re- 
alization that  the  Pope  should  be  apprized  of 
disorders  existing  no  matter  where  in  the 
Church,  his  request  that  the  bishop  of  Rome 
should  excommunicate  another  member  of 
the  episcopate,  and  finally  his  sending  the  de- 
liberations and  decrees  of  a  provincial  coun- 
cil to  Rome  for  Papal  approval. 

Thus  the  first  proposition  of  Dr.  Coxe  is 
irremediably  damaged. 

As  to  the  second  it  is  all  sufficient  to  say 
that  the  dreadful  schism  of  the  ninth  century 
could  not  have  brought  about  the  Pope's  spir- 
itual supremacy  from  the  simple  fact  that  the 
Papal  supremacy  was  an  unquestionable  fact 
before  the  schism,  and  the  schism  itself  was 


CYPRIAN  69 

an  act  of  rebellion  against  Roman  authority. 
The  history  of  that  lamentable  episode  of  the 
Church's  troubles,  the  letters  of  Pope  Nich- 
olas I,  Photius  and  the  Byzantine  Emperors, 
Basil  and  Leo,  all  point  out  most  clearly,  a 
pre-existing  acknowledgment  of  the  preroga- 
tives of  the  Apostolic  See,  the  supremacy  of 
which  began  to  impress  itself  upon  the  life 
of  the  Church,  when  Clement  of  Rome  took 
care  of  the  schism  at  Corinth,  and  it  contin- 
ued with  greater  or  less  emphasis  according 
to  varying  exigencies  to  make  itself  felt  until 
our  day. 

The  third  proposition  is  easily  met.  The 
primacy  which  the  unbiased  reader  finds  in 
Cyprian,  is  founded  upon  two  facts.  First, 
that  Peter  was  constituted  the  rock  upon 
which  the  fabric  of  the  Church  is  reared,  and 
is  therefore  the  first  and  chief  apostle,  and 
head  of  the  Church  in  the  matter  of  jurisdic- 
tion as  well  as  in  that  of  honor ;  second,  that 
Peter's  successors  in  the  Roman  See  inherit 
his  headship,  that  is,  his  jurisdiction  and 
honor.  Now  as  these  are  the  essential  fea- 
tures of  the  present  Papal  system,  it  follows 
cogently  that  the  " primacy* '  which  Cyprian 
supported  should  not  be  abolished,  to  make 
room  for  a  later  and  different  one.  St.  Cy- 
prian's writings  would  need  many  and  serious 


70  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

alterations  to  make  him  a  witness  for  An- 
glicanism. Dr.  Coxe  labors  hard  with  the 
various  texts  above  cited,  in  order  to  mini- 
mize or  explain  them  away.  At  times  his  ef- 
forts provoke  a  smile.  He  hammers  away 
concerning  the  * '  Forged  Decretals ' '  at  nearly 
every  step,  as  though  the  Papacy  was  not  a 
most  firmly  established  and  undisputed  fact 
before  that  puzzling  forgery  was  ever  thought 
of.  We  shall  notice  in  some  detail  further 
on,  Dr.  Coxe 's  insistence  upon  the  dependence 
of  the  Papacy  upon  the  "Decretals." 

Regarding  Dr.  Coxe's  hope  for  the  conver- 
sion of  "American  Romanists,"  perhaps  it 
suffices  to  say  that  the  outlook  from  his  point 
of  view  is  somewhat  depressing.  I'm  sure  it 
must  have  discouraged  him  a  bit.  It  is  not 
marvelous,  however,  that  he  omits  any  refer- 
ence to  that  constantly  growing  number  of 
souls  who  are  daily  leaving  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  for  the  light  and  warmth 
of  Catholicism. 

"Cyprian,"  says  Dr.  Coxe,  "is  often  in- 
correctly quoted  by  Roman  controvertists 
against  the  very  principles  pf  Cyprian  him- 
self, of  his  life  and  writings.  This  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  they  have  in  their  hands  vitiated 
and  interpolated  copies.  Thus  take  the  fa- 
mous   passage    as    follows;    Cyprian:    <Lo- 


CYPRIAN  71 

quitur  Dominus  ad  Petrum,  Ego  tibi  dico  Tu 
es  Petrus  etc.  (a)  Super  unum  (b)  aedificat 
ecclesiam.  Hoc  erant  utique  et  caeteri  apos- 
toli  quod  fuit  Petrus,  qui  consortio  praediti 
et  honoris  et  potestatis,  sed  exordium  ab- 
unitate  proficiscitur  (c)  ut  (d)  Ecclesia  (e) 
Dei  una  monstretur  (f). 

Qui  Ecclesiae  resistitur  et  resistit  (g),  in 
ecclesia  se  esse  confiditT 

INTERPOLATED 

(a)  Et  iterum  eidem  post  resurrectionem 
suam  dicit  Pasce  oves  meas. 

(b)  Super  ilium  unum  .  .  .  et  illi  pas- 
cendas  mandat  oves  suas. 

(c)  Et  Primatus  datur  Petro. 

(d)  Una. 

(e)  Et  Cathedra. 

(f)  Et  pastores  sunt  omnes  et  grex  unus 
ostenditur,  qui  ab  apostolis  omnibus,  unanimi 
consensione  pascatur,  etc. 

(g)  Qui  cathedram  Petri,  super  quern  fun- 
data  est  ecclesia  deserit,  etc. 

"This  is  but  a  specimen,,,  continues  Dr. 
Coxe, ' l  of  the  way  in  which  Cyprian  has  been 
doctored.  .  .  .  Baluzius  rejected  these 
interpolations."  * 

It  must  be  noted  here  that  the  most  crit- 

iAnte-Nic.  F.     Vol.  V,  p.  558. 


72  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

ical  edition  of  Cyprian  is  that  of  the  fa- 
mous Benedictine  congregation  of  St.  Maur. 
Baluzius,  the  justly  recognized  patristic 
scholar,  who  was  a  monk  of  this  congrega- 
tion, edited  and  annotated  Cyprian's  works. 
The  translations  into  English  of  these 
works  have  been  made  in  the  light  of  the 
labors  of  Baluzius.  Needless  to  say  I  re- 
fer to  the  renditions  of  Edinburgh  and  Ox- 
ford. The  American  edition  is  merely  a  re- 
print of  the  Oxford  translation  with  the  notes 
of  the  egregious  Coxe.  Protestant  scholars, 
almost  to  a  man,  grant  the  eminently  critical 
character  of  the  work  of  Baluzius.  The  fol- 
lowing is  the  text  of  the  "interpolated"  pas- 
sage, cited  above,  as  I  find  it  set  forth  by 
Baluzius:  "Probatio  est  ad  fidem  facilis, 
compendio  veritatis.  Loquitur  Dominus  ad 
Petrum  'Ego  tibi  dico,'  'inquit,'  'quia  tu  es 
Petrus,  etc.'  .  .  .  Super  ilium  unum 
sedificat  ecclesiam  suam,  et  illi  pascendas 
mandat  oves  suas.  Et  quamvis  Apostolis 
omnibus,  post  resurrectionem  suam  parem 
potestatem  tribuat  et  dicat:  'Sicut  misit  me 
Pater,  etc.'  .  .  .  tamen  ut  unitatem  mani- 
festaret,  unam  cathedram  constituit.  Hoc- 
erant  utique  et  ceteri  Apostoli  quod  fuit  Pe- 
trus, pari  consortio  praediti  et  honoris  et  po- 
testatis:  sed  exordium  ab  unitate  proficisci- 


CYPRIAN  73 

tur  (et  primatus  Petro  datur),  ut  una  Christi 
Ecclesia,  et  cathedra,  una  monstretur. ' ' '  Ba- 
luzius  takes  exception  to  the  words  which  I 
have  enclosed  with  parentheses.  This  phrase 
he  looks  upon  as  a  marginal  note,  since  it  is 
not  found  in  every  codex.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  this  parenthesis  the  text  stands  as 
above  in  every  codex  and  in  every  edition. 
The  sputterings  of  Dr.  Coxe,  concerning  the 
nameless  monk,2  who  tampered  with  the  notes 
of  Baluzius  are  beneath  the  notice  of  a 
scholar.  They  are  the  merest  gratuities, 
founded  on  no  respectable  evidence,  and  sug- 
gested by  an  edition  of  Cyprian's  treatise 
"De  Unitate,"  published  under  the  super- 
vision (or  editorship)  of  Dr.  Hyde,  in  Bur- 
lington, N.  J.  (A.  D.  1852),  a  book  filled  with 
typographical  errors  and  more  serious  blun- 
ders— a  work  in  short  of  no  critical  value 
whatever.  It  is  not  remarkable  that  Coxe 
is  enthusiastic  over  the  work  and  sympathetic 
with  its  editor — similis  simili  gaudet.  Throw 
aside  the  parenthesis ;  pare  the  passage  down 
to  the  limits  of  Dr.  Coxe  (if  so  I  may  speak), 
and  still  it  remains  an  unmistakable  testi- 
mony of  the  Papal  prerogatives. 

iCyp.  De  Unitate  Eccl.  C.  IV.  apud.  Migne  Patrol. 
2  Vol.  V,  558. 


CHAPTER  VI 

dr.  coxe's  summing  up 

The  eighth  volume  of  the  ante-Nicene  se- 
ries furnishes  us  with  Dr.  Coxe's  most  vigor- 
ous effort.  It  will  require  a  great  deal  of 
tactful  care,  to  avoid  referring  again  to  what 
has  been  sufficiently  refuted  already  in  these 
pages.  This  care  is  rendered  necessary  by 
the  untiring  repetitions  of  Dr.  Coxe.  He 
never  wearies  of  repeating  again  and  again 
the  same  bits  of  miserable  sophistry,  special 
pleading  and  plain  falsehood.  One  is  almost 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  object  he 
had  in  view  in  editing  the  "Fathers,"  had 
so  taken  hold  of  his  mind  as  to  have  disor- 
dered (at  least  in  some  degree)  his  faculties. 
His  zeal  betrays  him  into  fellowship  with 
every  heretic  and  rebel  against  ecclesiastical 
unity.  Any  bishop  of  the  ante-Nicene  pe- 
riod, who  attempts  to  withstand  Roman  au- 
thority, is  immediately  taken  to  Coxe's 
bosom,  and  becomes  a  hero  in  the  cause  of 
the  rights  of  the  Episcopate.  It  would  in- 
deed be  amusing  were  it  not  so  distressing. 

74 


DR.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP        75 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  pick  out  of  bis  eight 
neatly  set  forth  propositions  (which  he  de- 
clares must  be  perfectly  clear  to  students 
who  have  read  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers  with 
his  notes),  those  which  we  regard  it  neces- 
sary to  notice.  Dr.  Coxe,  in  his  second  prop- 
osition contends  "that  it  is  a  fundamental 
fact,  that  the  Apostolic  Sees  were  all  equally 
accounted  matrices  of  unity  and  the  roots  of 
the  other  churches.' '  "Down  to  the  Council 
of  Nicaea,"  he  continues,  "the  whole  system 
of  the  Church  was  framed  on  this  principle ; 
these  were  the  ancient  customs  which  the 
council  ordained  to  be  perpetual.  Because  it 
was  the  capital  of  the  empire,  and  for  no 
other  reason  (the  Petrine  idea  never  once 
mentioned),  the  primacy  of  honor  was  con- 
ceded to  Old  Eome,  ajid  equal  honor  to  New 
Borne,  because  it  was  the  new  capital." ' 

If  the  foregoing  statements  be  true  then 
the  following  testimonies  presumably  a  trifle 
more  authoritative  and  respectable  than  Dr. 
Coxe's,  are  utterly  worthless.  The  reader 
will  pardon  necessary  repetitions. 

1.  Clement  of  Eome  during  the  lifetime  of 
John  the  Evangelist,  hearkens  to  an  appeal 
from  Corinth,  and  issues  an  unmistakably 
authoritative  document  which  quieted  the  dis- 

i  Ante-Nicene  F.    Vol.  VIII,  p.  602. 


76  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

turbance    then    existing    in    the    Corinthian 
Church.     The  letter  was  read  in  Corinth  and 
elsewhere  at  public  services  for  several  cen- 
turies.   2.  Ignatius  of  Antioch  declares  that 
the  Roman  Church  rules   over  the  Church 
(coetus  caritatis),  and  holds  the  dignity  of 
the  first  place.     3.  Irenaeus  calls  the  Church 
of  Rome — the  greatest,  with  which  all  others 
must  agree  by  reason  of  its  great  power.     4. 
"From  Rome,"  says  Tertullian,  "comes  to 
us  the  very  authority,  of  the  Apostles  them- 
selves.''     "Pontifex     maximus,     episcopus 
episcoporum, ' '  are  titles  with  which  he  desig- 
nates the  incumbent  of  the  Roman  See.     5. 
Cyprian  identifies  Rome  with  the  Catholic 
Church.     "He  is  in  communion  with  Corne- 
lius, that  is  with  the  Catholic  Church.' '     He 
maintains  that  the  unity  of  the  priesthood 
has  its  source  in  the  Roman  Church,  and  that 
"perfidia"  can  have  no  access  to  the  Romans. 
He  begs  Rome  to  excommunicate  a  bishop. 
6.  Victor     of     Rome     excommunicates     the 
churches  of  Asia.     7.  The  Montanists  from 
Phrygia  take  their  cause  to  Rome.     8.  Dio- 
nysius  of  Rome  calls  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
to  account  for  his  teaching,  and  the  Alexan- 
drian bishop  both  submits  and  explains.     9. 
Stephen  utterly   refuses   to   treat  with  the 


DR.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP         77 

emissaries  of  Cyprian,  and  annuls  the  main 
proceeding  of  the  Carthaginian  council. 

If  the  foregoing  ante-Nicene  testimonies 
in  favor  Of  the  "Petrine  idea"  as  Dr.  Coxe 
calls  it,  be  valueless,  what  then  in  God's  name 
constitutes  historically  reliable  evidence?  To 
contend  that  the  ante-Nicene  period  of  the 
Church's  history  speaks  no  word  for  the  Pa- 
pacy, is  to  give  the  lie  to  facts.  To  maintain 
that  the  doctrine  of  Papal  supremacy  did  not 
express  itself  to  the  full  in  the  ante-Nicene 
period,  is  not  only  legitimate,  but  unquestion- 
ably expedient.  I  am  aware  that  some  would 
have  us  believe  that  the  same  universal  ac- 
knowledgment on  the  part  of  the  Church,  and 
the  same  active  maintenance  of  power  on  the 
part  of  Peter's  See  has  characterized  the  his- 
tory of  the  Papacy  from  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles down  to  our  own  times.  I  am  equally 
aware  however  that  such  a  position  is  unten- 
able, because  irreconcilable  with  history,  and 
it  constitutes  a  most  feeble  defense  of  the 
Papacy  itself.  The  illustrious  Newman  gave 
us  a  world  of  teaching  on  the  matter,  when 
he  pointed  out  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
second  and  third  centuries  of  our  era,  in  their 
attitude  towards  Eome,  is  found  in  the  fourth 
and  fifth.     And  as  our  misguided  friend  Coxe 


78  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

plunges  madly  over  the  Nicene  border,  it  is 
proper  that  we  should  follow  him  as  far  as 
our  purpose  demands. 

1  '  The  mighty  centralization  about  Constan- 
tinople ;"  he  continues,  "the  three  councils 
held  within  its  walls ;  the  virtual  session  of 
the  other  councils  under  its  eaves ;  the  incon- 
siderable figure  of  '  Old  Eome '  in  strictly  ec- 
clesiastical history;  her  barrenness  of  litera- 
ture, and  of  great  heroic  sons,  .  .  .  and 
her  decadence  as  a  capital,  had  led  Leo  I  and 
others  after  him  to  dwell  much  upon  '  St.  Pe- 
ter,' and  to  favor  new  ideas  of  his  personal 
greatness,  and  of  a  transmitted  grandeur  as 
the  inheritance  of  his  successors.  As  yet 
these  were  but  l  great  swelling  words  of  van- 
ity;' but  they  led  to  the  formulated  fraud  of 
the  Decretals."1  Bishop  Coxe  wrote  the 
above  in  a  hurry.  It  is  a  little  difficult  to 
see  how  the  three  councils  held  within  the 
walls  of  the  Byzantine  capital  could  have 
formed  any  part  of  the  inspiration  of  Leo  I, 
to  insist  on  the  greatness  of  Peter  and  the 
See  of  Rome,  since  Leo  was  a  long  time  dead 
before  the  Second  Council  of  Constantinople 
was  thought  of.  This  was  a  bold  stroke  on 
the  part  of  Dr.  Coxe.  In  order  to  be  well 
impressed  with  the  "inconsiderable  figure  of 

i  Ante-Nic.  F.    Vol.  VIII,  p.  662. 


DR.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP         79 

'Old  Rome,'  "  in  Leo's  time,  we  must  turn 
to  that  lofty-minded  and  vigorous  character 
himself,  for  an  account  of  his  view. 

It  is  still  very  early  in  the  Church's  his- 
tory; but  a  hundred  years,  since  the  august 
gathering  at  Nica?a  had  formed  the  first  great 
Christian  synod.  On  September  29,  A.  D. 
440,  Leo,  so  deservedly  called  the  great,  as- 
cended the  throne  of  Peter.  Not  long  after 
that  event,  and  surely  before  he  could  have 
shaped  a  policy  by  which  to  compete  with 
Constantinople,  and  while  still  in  a  measure, 
under  the  surprise  which  took  possession  of 
him,  when  the  deputation  from  the  Eternal 
City  had  informed  him,  then  in  Gaul  on  a 
political  mision,  that  Sixtus  had  died  and 
that  he  was  chosen  for  Peter 's  chair,  he  spoke 
as  follows  in  a  sermon  to  the  Roman  people : 
"Divine  mercy  has  made  this  a  day  of  honor 
for  me,  for  by  raising  my  humbleness  to  the 
highest  rank,  it  has  made  manifest,  that  He 
has  not  held  in  contempt  any  of  His  own. 
.  .  ,  I  confess  my  joy  over  your  devotion, 
when  I  behold  this  magnificent  assemblage  of 
my  venerable  brothers  of  the  priesthood. 
.  .  .  I  feel  sure,  that  the  fostering  inter- 
est and  sincere  love  of  the  Apostle  Peter  is 
not  wanting  to  this  congregation :  he  has  not 
despised  your  devotion  in  whose  honor  you 


80  THE  SEE  OF  PETES 

are  gathered  together.  ...  He  rejoices 
in  your  respect  for  the  Lord's  own  institu- 
tion, as  shown  toward  the  partners  of  his 
honor.  ...  In  order  therefore,  dearly 
beloved,  that  this  loyalty  which  you  so  unani- 
mously show  toward  my  littleness,  may  ob- 
tain the  proper  result  of  its  ardor,  on  bended 
knee  beg  the  condescending  goodness  of  our 
God  that  he  will  .  .  .  deign  to  render 
me  his  poor  servant,  whom  to  show  the  treas- 
ures of  His  grace  He  has  willed  to  place  at 
the  helm  of  His  Churchy  sufficient  for  so 
great  a  work. ' ' l  We  find  in  another  sermon 
of  Leo,  delivered  probably  on  the  third  anni- 
versary of  his  accession  a  still  stronger  ex- 
position of  the  "Petrine  idea."  "The  dis- 
pensation of  Truth  still  abides,  and  the 
blessed  Peter  persevering  in  the  strength  of 
the  Kock,  which  he  has  received,  has  not 
abandoned  the  helm  of  the  Church,  which  he 
undertook.  For  he  was  ordained  in  such  wise 
before  the  rest,  that  from  his  being  named  the 
Kock,  from  his  being  declared  the  Founda- 
tion, from  his  being  appointed  the  Gate- 
keeper of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  from  his 
being  placed  as  the  Judge  to  bind  and  to 
loose,  whose  judgments  shall  remain  valid  in 
heaven,  from  all  these  mystical  appellations, 

i  Sermon  I. 


DE.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP        81 

we  might  realize  the  nature  of  his  relation- 
ship with  Christ.  And  to-day,  he  does  the 
work  committed  to  him,  thoroughly  and  ef- 
fectually, and  performs  every  portion  of  his 
duty  and  mission  in  Him,  and  with  Him, 
through  Whom  he  has  been  glorified.  And 
hence  if  anything  is  properly  done  and  justly 
decreed  by  us,  if  anything  is  obtained  from 
God's  mercy  by  our  daily  prayers,  it  is  of 
his  work  and  merits  whose  power  lives,  and 
whose  authority  prevails  in  his  See."  *  One 
would  almost  believe  that  Leo  had  a  copy  of 
the  "Forged  Decretals,' '  in  his  inside  pocket. 
Further  on  in  the  same  discourse,  he  reminds 
the  faithful  at  Eome  of  their  special  privi- 
lege. "Though  the  whole  Church,  which  is 
spread  throughout  the  world  ought  to  abound 
in  all  virtues,  yet  you  especially,  above  all 
people,  it  behooves  to  excel  in  the  works  of 
piety,  because  founded  as  you  are  upon  the 
very  citadel  of  the  Apostolic  Rock,  not  only 
has  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  redeemed,  you  in 
common  with  all  men,  but  the  blessed  Apos- 
tle Peter  has  instructed  you  far  beyond  all 
men."2 

It  is  surely  worth  while  to  note  here  the 
concept  Leo  had  of  his  office,  as  that  concept 

iSerm.  III. 
2  Ibid. 


82  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

is  revealed  in  his  relations  with  bishops  out- 
side the  Roman  province.  Writing  to  the 
bishop  of  Aquileia  in  whose  province  the  Pe- 
lagian heresy  had  been  spreading  he  says: 
"By  our  authoritative  injunction,  we  charge 
you  to  have  a  care  that  a  council  of  priests 
of  your  province  be  convoked.  .  .  .  Let 
them  (those  who  had  been  too  hastily  re- 
ceived back  after  being  guilty  of  heresy), 
announce  by  full  and  clear  statements,  that 
they  embrace  and  entirely  approve  all  the 
conciliar  decrees  which  the  authority  of  the 
Apostolic  See  has  ratified."1  The  follow- 
ing extracts  from  his  letter  to  Anastasius  the 
bishop  of  Thessalonica  are  most  valuable  in 
this  connection.  "Now,  therefore,  dear 
brother,  that  your  request  has  been  made 
Jmown  to  us  through  our  son  Nicholaus  the 
presbyter,  that  you  too,  like  your  predeces- 
sors, might  receive  from  us  in  our  turn,  juris- 
diction over  Illyricum  for  the  observance  of 
the  ordinances,  we  give  our  consent,  and  ear- 
nestly exhort,  ftiat  no  concealment  and  no 
negligence  may  be  allowed  in  the  government 
of  the  churches  located  in  Illyricum  which  we 
commit  to  you  in  our  stead,"  etc.  .  .  .  Let 
any  bishop,  who  contrary  to  our  command,  is 
ordained  by  his  metropolitan  without  your 

i  Ep.  I. 


DR.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP         83 

cognizance,  know  that  he  has  no  acknowledged 
rank  with  us,  and  that  they  who  have  pre- 
sumed thus  to  act,  must  render  an  account  of 
their  presumption."  ...  If  any  very 
important  question  spring  up,  such  as  cannot 
be  disposed  of  there  under  your  leadership, 
send  word  to  us,  and  seek  our  direction,  so 
that  we  may  send  word  back  under  the  Lord's 
direction  .  .  .  that  by  our  decision,  we  may 
emphasize  our  right  of  supervision,  in  accord 
with  the  ancient  established  tradition,  and 
the  i  everence  which  is  due  the  Apostolic  See : 
for  as  we  wish  you  to  to  exercise  your  author- 
ity in  our  stead,  so  we  reserve  to  ourselves 
points  which  cannot  be  immediately  settled, 
as  well  as  persons  who  have  appealed  to 
us. ' ' *  In  one  of  his  epistles  to  Flavian  of 
Constantinople,  he  rebukes  the  latter  for  not 
sending  him  a  detailed  account  of  the  case  of 
Eutyches,  and  finally  demands  the  same 
"Signify  to  us  in  a  full  account,  by  the  hand 
of  the  most  fit  and  competent  person,  what 
innovation  has  sprung  up  against  the  ancient 
faith,  which  needed  to  be  punished  with  such 
severity  (i.  e.,  the  sentence  of  Flavian  against 
Eutyches).  For  the  administration  of  the 
Church,  and  the  pious  faith  of  our  most  godly 
prince  demand,,  that  we  manifest  much  con- 

i  Ep.  VI. 


84  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

cern  for  the  peace  of  Christendom :  that  dis- 
sensions may  be  dissipated  and  the  Catholic 
Faith  be  kept  uninjured,  and  that  those  whose 
faith  has  been  proved  may  be  fortified  by  our 
authority,"  etc.  Leo  complains  to  the  Em- 
peror Theodosius  II  of  the  tardiness  of  Fla- 
vian in  answering  his  communication,  though 
it  appears,  with  some  injustice  to  Flavian, 
who  furnished  in  a  letter  of  considerable 
length  what  Leo  demanded.  We  find  the  fol- 
lowing words  in  Flavian's  document :  "There- 
fore, most  holy  Father,  use  your  accustomed 
promptness  .  .  .  and  in  defending  the 
commonweal  and  good  of  the  holy  churches, 
consent  by  your  own  letter,  to  approve  the 
resolution  that  has  been  canonically  passed 
upon  him.  .  .  .  The  matter  now  only  re- 
quires your  authority  and  concurrence,  which 
through  your  wisdom  will  bring  about  general 
peace  and  quietude.  For  thus  both  the 
heresy  that  has  sprung  up,  and  the  disorder 
which  it  has  aroused,  will  easily  be  appeased 
by  God's  assistance  through  an  epistle  from 
you ;  and  the  much  talked  of  council  will  also 
be  prevented,  and  so  the  most^holy  churches 
throughout  the  world  need  suffer  no  disturb- 
ance. ' ' * 

I  could  readily  add  a  number  of  such  testi- 

i  Epist.  XXVI,  inter  Leonis  magni  epistolas. 


DR.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP        85 

monies,  but  the  above  are  sufficient  for  our 
purpose.  Perhaps  the  most  unmistakable 
view  of  his  prerogative  as  bishop  of  Rome, 
is  seen  in  his  utter  rejection  of  the  twenty- 
eighth  canon  of  Chalcedon,  whereby  the  coun- 
cil wished  to  advance  the  prestige  of  New 
Rome.  This  canon,  though  supported  by  the 
Emperor  Marcion  and  the  Empress  Pulcheria, 
was  summarily  rejected  by  Leo,  and  though 
it  has  been  stated  that  in  giving  the  reason 
for  his  action  he  confused  the  decrees  of 
Nicaea  with  those  of  Sardica,  this  is  nothing 
to  the  point.  Leo  withstood  an  ecumenical 
council  to  defend  the  prerogatives  of  Peter's 
Chair.  To  the  Empress  he  wrote  these  mem- 
orable words:  "The  resolution  of  the  bish- 
ops, which  is  against  the  Nicene  decree,  by 
the  authority  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter, 
I  absolutely  annul  and  declare  invalid."1 
And  writing  to  the  Emperor  Marcion  he  thus 
refers  to  Anatolius,  who  had  been  raised  to 
the  see  of  Constantinople  by  Leo's  favor. 
"Let  Anatolius  be  content  that,  by  the  aid  of 
your  piety  and  my  favor  and  approval  he  has 
obtained  the  bishopric  of  so  great  a  city."2 
If  there  were  any  vain-glorious  or  jealous 
motives  prompting  Leo  in  his  bold  assertion 
of  the  honors  and  powers  attaching  to  his  see, 

i  Ep.  cv.  2  Ep.  civ. 


86  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

surely  history  does  not  reveal  them.  From 
the  day  of  his  first  words  as  bishop  of  Rome, 
amid  the  splendid  ceremonial  of  his  consecra- 
tion, until  his  death,  his  various  utterances 
concerning  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  bish- 
opric, manifest  a  deep-seated  consciousness, 
that  that  supremacy  rested  upon  no  other 
than  a  divine  foundation.  It  is  strange  that 
our  brilliant  editor  omitted  to  explain  why 
the  bishops  of  Thessalonica,  Alexandria  (Cy- 
ril), Aquileia  and  even  Constantinople  did 
not  oppose  resistance  to  the  " lofty  words" 
of  Leo,  declaring  that  he  invaded  their  rights 
and  privileges.  Again,  why  does  Dr.  Coxe 
single  out  Leo  I,  who  was  consecrated  A.  D. 
440 j.  as  the  first  great  offender,  so  to  speak. 
His  attitude  towards  Leo  is  much  severer 
than  that  which  he  adopted  towards  Victor, 
Dionysius  and  Stephen.  We  suspect  the  rea- 
son, however.  But  to  confine  ourselves  to 
post-Nicene  times,  it  must  even  then  be  main- 
tained, that  Leo  was  not  the  first  incumbent 
of  the  Roman  See  who  spoke  "  great  swelling 
words  of  vanity."  Does  not  Dr.  Coxe  recol- 
lect the  letter  of  Pope  Damasus  to  the  bish- 
ops assembled  at  Constantinople,  in  which  he 
commends  their  regard  for  the  Apostolic  See 
and  calls  them  his  sons?  Why  does  our  val- 
iant foe  ignore  Pope  St.  Siricius  (A.  D.  385) 


DR.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP        87 

who  writes,  "We  carry  the  burden  of  all  who 
are  laden;  or  rather  the  blessed  Apostle  Pe- 
ter beareth  them  in  us,  who  we  believe  pro- 
tects and  defends  in  all  things,  us  ivho  are 
the  heirs  of  his  government."  l  Innocent  I 
appears  fully  as  guilty  as  the  great  Leo. 
"Diligently  and  agreeably"  he  writes  to  the 
Council  of  Milevis  (A.  D.  417)  do  you  seek 
counsel  from  the  arcana  of  Apostolical  dig- 
nity, the  dignity  of  him  on  whom,  besides 
those  things  which  are  without,  falls  the  care 
of  all  the  churches ;  following  the  form  of  the 
ancient  rule,  which  you  know  as  well  as  I, 
has  been  preserved  always  by  the  whole 
world.,,2  St.  Celestine  I  (A.D.  425)  writ- 
ing to  the  Illyrican  bishop  says,  "We  have 
an  especial  care  about  all  persons,  on  whom 
in  the  holy  Apostle  Peter  Christ  laid  the 
necessity  of  making  all  men  our  care,  when 
he  gave  him  the  Keys."  Is  it  not  amazing 
that  history  records  no  protest  on  the  part 
of  the  bishops  throughout  the  world,  or  at 
least  in  Illyria  and  the  East,  against  this 
monstrous  presumption  on  the  part  of  Rome! 
No,  it  is  not  strange  because  those  bishops 
knew  the  divine  constitution  of  the  Church, 
and  were  Catholics,  neither  of  which  can  be 

i  Coustant  Epp.  Pont.,  p.  624. 
2  Ibid.,  pp.  896,  1064. 


88  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

said  of  Dr.  Coxe.  Dr.  Coxe  has  studied  his 
case  poorly  indeed,  but  after  all  as  well  as 
the  case  deserved,  for  verily  it  was  a  poor 
case. 

It  will  be  much  to  our  purpose  to  quote 
here  a  few  lines  from  a  letter  written  by  the 
historian  Theodoret  to  Leo  I,  witnessing  his 
appreciation  of  the  special  honor  and  juris- 
diction attaching  to  the  Chair  of  Peter. 
Theodoret  was  bishop  of  Cyrus  and  his  letter 
begs  the  annulment  by  Leo,  of  certain  decrees 
of  the  Latrocinium.  The  letter  has  all  the 
more  force,  proceeding  as  it  does  from  an 
oriental  source.  "If  Paul  .  .  .  hastened 
to  the  great  Peter  in  order  that  he  might 
carry  from  him  the  solution  of  difficulties  to 
those  at  Antioch  .  .  .  much  more  do  we 
men  of  little  account,  hasten  to  your  Apos- 
tolic See,  in  order  to  obtain  from  you  a  rem- 
edy for  the  wounds  of  the  churches.  For 
every  reason  is  it  fitting  for  you  to  hold  the 
first  place,  since  your  see  is  endowed  with  so 
many  special  privileges.  ...  In  these  days 
God  has  adorned  the  throne  of  the  Apostles, 
by  placing  on  it  your  holiness,  emitting  as 
you  do  the  rays  of  orthodoxy.' '  He  then  pro- 
ceeds with  the  narrative  of  his  grievances, 
namely  the  imputation  of  heresy  and  the  loss 
of  his  see,  and  ends  by  a  fervid  appeal  to  Leo 


DR.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP         89 

for  help.  "I  await  the  sentence  of  your 
Apostolic  See.  I  beseech  and  implore  your 
holiness  to  help  me  in  my  appeal  to  your  fair 
and  righteous  tribunal.  Command  me  to 
come  to  you,  to  prove  that  my  teaching  fol- 
lows the  footprints  of  the  apostles.  .  .  . 
Do  not  spurn  my  prayer,  I  beg  of  you.  Be- 
fore all  I  implore  you  to  tell  me  whether  I 
must  bear  this  unrighteous  decision  or  not. 
I  await  your  decision.' ' l  This  testimony  is 
too  eloquent  to  stand  in  need  of  either  note 
or  commentary. 

"Ambition  once  entering  the  pale  of  Cath- 
olicity," continues  Dr.  Coxe,  "we  find  a 
counter  idea  to  that  of  the  councils  at  the 
root  of  the  first  usurpation  of  unscriptural 
dignity.  John  'the  Faster'  bishop  of  New 
Eome  .  .  .  called  himself  '  Ecumenical 
Bishop.'  Gregory  was  then  bishop  of  'Old 
Eome,'  and  that  was  the  time  to  assert  the 
principle  of  the  Decretals,  had  any  such  idea 
ever  been  heard  of.  How  did  he  meet  his 
brother's  arrogance!  Not  appealing  to  de- 
cretals ;  not  by  asserting  that  such  was  his 
own  dignity  derived  from  St.  Peter,  but  by 
protesting  against  such  abasement  of  all 
other  patriarchs,  and  all  other  bishops  (who 
were  all  equals),  and  by  pronouncing  the  im- 

i  Ep.  CXIII  ad  Leonen  Ep.  Romae. 


90  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

pious  assumption  of  such  a  nefarious  title,  to 
denote  a  forerunner  of  Antichrist.  Plainly, 
then,  there  was  no  Pope  known  to  Christen- 
dom at  the  close,  of  the  sixth  century. ' ' 1 
Gregory  the  Great  both  repudiated  the  title 
of  "universal  bishop"  for  himself,  and  for- 
bade its  use  by  John  of  Constantinople. 
Without  at  all  minimizing  to  the  smallest  ex- 
tent the  prerogatives  of  the  Apostolic  See,  he 
regarded  the  use  of  such  a  title  on  the  part  of 
St.  Peter's  successors,  as  unseemly — ill  fitted 
to  him  who  above  all  others  in  the  Church  of 
Christ  should  be  a  pattern  of  humility.  The 
assumption  of  such  a  title  on  the  part  of  any 
other  bishop,  Gregory  regarded  as  an  intol- 
erable arrogance.  Although  we  have  al- 
ready quoted  sufficiently  from  the  letters  of 
St.  Gregory  to  show  with  unmistakable  clear- 
ness, that  Gregory  regarded  himself  as  head 
of  the  Church  in  the  matter  of  jurisdiction  as 
well  as  that  of  honor,  yet,  since  there  is  much 
valuable  testimony  along  the  same  line  to  be 
drawn  from  St.  Gregory  anent  the  assump- 
tion on  the  part  of  John  "the  Faster,"  of  the 
proud  title  in  question,  I  deem  it  proper  to 
adduce  at  least  a  portion  of  it  here. 

"With  what  daring  or  with  what  inflation 
of  pride  I  know  not,"  writes  Gregory  to  John, 

i  Ante-Nicene  Fathers.     Vol.  VIII,  p.  602. 


DR.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP         91 

"you  have  attempted  to  assume  a  new  title, 
whereby  the  hearts  of  all  your  brethren  might 
have  taken  scandal.  .  .  .  With  regard  to 
this  same  matter,  weighty  letters  were  ad- 
dressed to  your  holiness,  by  our  predeces- 
sor, Pelagius  of  holy  memory;  in  which  he 
annulled  the  acts  of  the  synod  which  had  been 
assembled  among  you,  in  the  case  of  our  once 
brother  and  fellow-bishop  Gregory,  because 
of  that  execrable  title  of  pride.  ...  But 
after  his  death  when,  I,  unworthy  though  I 
be  succeeded  to  the  government  of  the 
Church  ...  I  addressed  your  Holiness 
wishing  you  to  restrain  yourself  from  such 
presumption  .  .  .  that  I  might  first  ap- 
peal to  your  Holiness  through  a  sense  of 
shame,  with  this  end  in  view  however,  that  if 
the  detestable  and  profane  assumption  could 
not  be  corrected  through  shame,  rigorous 
canonical  measures  should  then  be  resorted 
to."  x  Can  the  reader  imagine  Gregory  thus 
addressing  one  whom  he  looked  upon  as  his 
equal?  On  what  ground  dared  Pope  Pela- 
gius annul  the  synod  held  at  Constantinople, 
■ — thus  interfering  with  the  prestige  of  New 
Rome?  And  why  in  heaven's  name  did  not 
the  orientals  cry  out  and  protest  against  Ro- 
man arrogance?     These  queries  place  insur- 

i  Greg.  Ep.  XVIII  ad  Joan. 


92  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

mountable  difficulties  in  the  way  of  accept- 
ing Dr.  Coxe's  pet  theory  of  the  "parity  of 
bishops."  "Was  it  not  true,"  continues 
Gregory, ' i  as  your  Fraternity  knows,  that  the 
venerable  Synod  of  Chalcedon  offered  to  the 
prelates  of  this  Apostolic  See,  which  by  God's 
dispensation  I  serve,  the  honor  of  being  called 
1  universal  bishops.'  Yet  not  one  of  them 
has  wished  to  be  called  by  such  a  title."  x  It 
is  of  interest  to  note  here  that  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  actually  called  Leo  I  ' ;'  oUovixcvikos 

d/3^t€7rtCTK07rOS.  ' '  2 

"To  all  who  know  the  gospel  it  is  apparent, 
that  by  our  Lord's  voice,  the  care  of  the 
whole  Church  was  committed  to  the  holy 
Apostle  and  Prince  of  all  the  Apostles,  Peter. 
.  .  .  So  he  received  the  keys  of  the  heav- 
enly kingdom,  and  power  to  bind  and  loose  is 
given  to  him,  and  the  care  and  principality 
of  the  whole  Church  is  committed  to  him,  and 
yet  he  is  not  called  the  universal  apostle."3 
In  a  letter  to  Natalis,  the  bishop  of  Salona, 
Gregory  complains  bitterly  of  the  former's 
disregard  of  the  mandates  of  the  Holy  See, 
and  adds  that  "if  any  of  the  four  patriarchs 
had  acted  similarly,  such  great  contumacy 
could  not  by  any  means  have  been  suffered  to 

i  Ep.  XVIII  Greg,  ad  Joan. 

2  Labbe  et  Cossart  Concilia.     Vol.  IV,  Col.  368. 

s  Ep.  XXI. 


DR.  COXE'S  SUMMING  UP         93 

go  by  without  the  most  grievous  scandal. ' ' * 
"Quod  si  quilibet  ex  quatuor  patriarchis  fe- 
cisset,  sine  gravissimo  scandalo  tanta  contu- 
macia  transire  nullo  modo  potuisset.,, 

It  is  nothing  short  of  astounding,  to  read 
in  the  face  of  the  foregoing  testimonies  the 
cool  remark  of  Dr.  Coxe  that  "it  is  quite  plain 
that  there  was  no  'pope'  known  to  Christen- 
dom at  the  close  of  the  sixth  century.  No 
Protestant  historian  has  ever  had  the  temer- 
ity to  commit  himself  to  such  a  preposterous 
position,  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  an 
Anglican  editor  of  St.  Gregory's  works  states 
as  a  historical  fact,  that  the  same  holy  pontiff 
both  claimed  and  exercised  universal  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  Church.,,2 

The  rest  of  Dr.  Coxe's  notes  we  may  profit- 
ably ignore.  They  contain  nothing  that  has 
not  been  put  forward  again  and  again.  His 
bold  strokes  on  the  question  of  the  Forged 
Decretals  avail  nothing,  for  the  fraud  of 
those  documents  had  been  exposed  by  Cath- 
olic investigation  long  before  they  were  ever 
mentioned  in  Protestant  controversial  litera- 
ture. Nicholas  of  Cusa,  the  distinguished 
cardinal  and  theologian  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury, not  only  called  the  Pseudo-decretals  into 

i  Ep.  LII. 

2  Gregory's  Pastoral  Life  and  Selected  Letters.  J. 
Barmby,  D.D.,  Prologom.  XI. 


94  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

question,  but  in  fact  opened  the  way  to  all 
subsequent  investigation  of  the  subject.  It 
is  a  fact  which  should  arrest  attention  that 
the  exposure  of  the  Decretals,  never  for  a 
moment  shook  the  power  of  the  Papacy,  or 
injured  its  position  a  jot  or  a  tittle.  The 
Papacy  needed  no  apologists  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury when  the  Forged  Decretals  as  a  collec- 
tion first  saw  the  light.  I  say  "as  a  collec- 
tion' '  advisedly,  since  it  is  beyond  all  legiti- 
mate argument  that  some  of  the  documents 
found  in  the  collection  are  genuine.  The 
worthlessness  of  the  Decretals  could  not  af- 
fect the  papal  power,  since  that  power  was  a 
great  central  fact  known  and  acknowledged 
by  both  East  and  West  ages  before  Nicholas 
I  saw  the  light.  The  assertion  of  Dr.  Coxe 
that  Nicholas  created  the  Papacy  is  too  ut- 
terly childish  to  merit  any  notice  in  a  seri- 
ous discussion.  Methinks,  after  perusing  the 
notes  of  our  hero,  that  he  would  have  been  a 
willing  worker  at  the  " forging' '  business, 
had  the  forgeries  attuned  themselves  to  his 
prejudices.  He  would  not  have  deceived  the 
judicious  however,  for  he  was  an  egregious 
bungler. 


CHAPTER  VII 

VOICES  FKOM  THE  EAST 

It  has  been  a  favorite  contention  with  An- 
glican controversialists,  that  the  Eastern 
Church  never  allowed  the  "  Roman  preten- 
sion," and  that  even  a  certain  TrpcV/Scia  was 
grudgingly  accorded  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter.  It  will  be  of  both  value  and  interest 
I  think,  to  close  this  little  book  with  a  few 
striking  oriental  testimonies  against  the 
above  contention,  especially  since  they  are 
drawn  from  a  period  at  which  Dr.  Coxe 
blandly  states  " there  was  no  'pope'  known  to 
Christendom." 

Stephen  the  bishop  of  Dora  in  Palestine, 
was  commissioned  by  his  metropolitan  the 
patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  St.  Sophronius,  to 
present  a  document  in  person  to  Pope  St. 
Martin,  at  the  Lateran  Council  A.  D.  649. 
Speaking  of  the  troubles  brought  upon  the  pa- 
triarchate of  St.  Sophronius  by  Monothelit- 
ism,  he  says.  "  And  for  this  cause  sometimes 
we  asked  for  water  to  our  head,  and  to  our 
eyes  a  fountain  of  tears,  sometimes  the  wings 

95 


96  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

of  a  dove,  according  to  holy  David,  that  we 
might  fly  away  and  announce  these  things 
to  the  Chair  which  rules  and  presides  over 
all,  I  mean  to  yours  the  head  and  highest  for 
the  healing  of  the  whole  wound.  For  this  it 
has  been  accustomed  to  do  from  old,  and  from 
the  beginning  with  its  canonical  or  apostol- 
ical authority,  because  the  truly  great  Peter, 
head  of  the  Apostles,  was  clearly  thought 
worthy,  not  only  to  be  entrusted  with  the 
keys  of  heaven,  alone  apart  from  the  rest,  to 
open  it  worthily  to  believers,  or  to  close  it 
justly  to  those  who  disbelieve  the  Gospel  of 
Grace,  but  because  he  was  first  commissioned 
to  feed  the  sheep  of  the  whole  Catholic 
Church;  for  " Peter,' '  saith  He,  "lovest  thou 
Me?  Feed  my  sheep."  "And  again,  be- 
cause he  had  in  a  manner  peculiar  and  spe- 
cial, a  faith  in  the  Lord  stronger  than  all  and 
unchangeable,  to  be  converted  and  to  con- 
firm his  fellows  and  spiritual  brethren  when 
tossed  about,  as  having  been  adorned  by  God 
Himself  Incarnate  for  us  with  power  and 
sacerdotal  authority,' 1  Stephen  declares  that 
such  too  was  the  faith  of  Sophronius.  He 
narrates  that  the  patriarch  took  him  up  to 
the  summit  of  Calvary  and  there  solemnly 

i  Mansi  X  893,  quoted  by  Dom  John  Chapman,  O.S.B. 
Dublin  Review,  July,  1906.  The  Condemnation  of  Pope 
Honorius. 


VOICES  FROM  THE  EAST  97 

charged  him  to  make  the  journey  to  Rome. 
"Swiftly  pass,  therefore  from  one  end  of  the 
world  to  the  other,  until  thou  come  to  the 
Apostolic  See,  where  are  the  foundations  of 
the  holy  doctrines."  After  repeating  the 
dread  charge  of  Sophronius,  Stephen  de- 
scribes to  Pope  Martin  the  alacrity  with 
which  he  fulfilled  his  mission.  "Without  de- 
lay I  made  this  journey  for  this  purpose 
alone;  and  since  then  thrice  have  I  run  to 
your  apostolic  feet,  urging  the  prayer  of 
Sophronius  and  of  all,  that  is,  that  you  will 
assist  the  imperiled  faith  of  Christians." 

We  possess  a  valuable  epistle  sent  to  Pope 
Theodore  I  by  the  oriental  bishops  convened 
in  a  synod  at  Cyprus,  May  29,  A.  D.  643. 
"To  the  most  holy  and  God-confirmed  Father 
of  Fathers,  Archbishop  and  oecumenical 
Patriarch,  Lord  Theodore,  Sergius,  least  of 
bishops,  greeting  in  the  Lord." 

"Christ  our  God  has  instituted  your  apos- 
tolic chair,  0  holy  head,  as  a  God-fixed  and 
immovable  foundation.  For  thou,  as  truly 
spake  the  divine  Word,  art  Peter,  and  upon 
thy  foundation  the  pillars  of  the  Church  have 
been  fixed,  and  to  thee  He  committed  the 
keys  of  the  heavens,  He  ordered  thee  to  bind 
and  to  loose  with  authority  on  earth  and  in 
heaven.     Thou  art  set  as  the  destroyer  of 


98  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

profane  heresies,  as  Coryphaeus  and  leader 
of  the  orthodox  and  unsullied  faith.  De- 
spise not  then,  Father,  the  faith  of  our  Fa- 
thers, tossed  by  waves  and  imperiled;  dis- 
perse the  rule  of  the  foolish  with  the  light  of 
thy  divine  knowledge,  0  most  holy.  Destroy 
the  blasphemies  and  insolence  of  the  new 
heretics,  with  their  novel  expressions.  For 
nothing  is  wanting  to  your  orthodox  and 
apostolic  definition  and  tradition,  for  the 
augmentation  of  the  faith  among  us.  For 
we  (0  inspired  one,  you  who  hold  converse 
with  the  holy  Apostles  and  sit  with  them), 
believe  and  confess  from  of  old  since  our 
very  swaddling  clothes,  teaching  according 
to  the  holy  and  God-bearing  Pope  Leo,  and 
declaring  that  'each  nature  works  with  the 
communion  of  the  other,'  "  *  etc.  Again  to- 
wards the  conclusion  of  the  same  synodal 
document  we  find  the  following :  ' '  May  God, 
the  Creator  of  all,  preserve  for  many  years 
our  all  holy  Lord,  for  the  stability  of  His  holy 
Churches,  and  of  the  orthodox  faith,  the  good 
Shepherd,  who  lay  down  your  own  life  for 
your  spiritual  sheep,  and  who  chase  away 
the  ravages  of  the  wolf  with  your  pastoral 
staff.' ' 2  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  docu- 
ment addressed  to  the  Holy  See  by  bishops, 

i  Mansi  X,  914.  2  ibid. 


VOICES  FROM  THE  EAST         99 

since  the  definition  of  Papal  Infallibility  that 
could  be  compared  well  with  this  letter  of  an 
oriental  synod,  in  the  matter  of  setting  forth 
a  recognition  of  the  "Petrine  idea."  Yet 
Dr.  Coxe  assures  us  that  when  this  epistle 
was  written  there  was  no  "pope"  known  to 
Christendom.  It  would  be  still  more  diffi- 
cult, nay  impossible,  to  eliminate  the  "Pe- 
trine  idea"  from  the  first  six  centuries  of 
the  Church's  history  and  leave  organic 
Christianity  intact.  Protestantism's  appeal 
to  antiquity  is,  as  we  have  previously  re- 
marked in  these  pages,  fatal  to  its  cause. 
Protestantism  to  be  logical  must  sweep  aside 
the  entire  history  of  fifteen  hundred  years, 
and  mutilate  the  New  Testament  beyond  rec- 
ognition. It  must  declare  Christianity  to 
have  been  a  colossal  blunder  from  the  start. 
The  history  of  Protestantism  has  no  sur- 
prises for  the  observant  student  of  history. 
It  began  by  paring  down  and  cutting  off  doc- 
trines which  belonged  to  the  deposit  of  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  Saints,  and  it  has  kept 
on  cutting  and  hewing  until  dogma  has  gone 
almost  to  the  last  vestige,  for  even  such  a 
truth  as  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  freely  dis- 
cussed, debated  and  questioned.  The  trade- 
mark of  liberal,  up-to-date  Christianity  is 
the  repudiation  of  creed. 


100  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

Anglicanism  is  no  better  than  any  other 
phase  of  Protestantism.  Save  that  little 
coterie  of  Ritualists  who  sigh  for  reform, 
and  endeavor  to  reintroduce  much  of  the  old 
faith  and  practice,  the  Anglican  Church  is 
essentially  Protestant,  and  has  not  the  re- 
motest affinity  to  Catholicism,  or  even  to  the 
schismatical  sects  of  the  East,  and  the 
strongest  witnesses  against  her  pretensions 
are  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  to  whom  some 
of  her  sons  look  for  support. 

So  like  every  effort  against  that  Rock  on 
which  the  Church  is  built  Bishop  Coxe's  fee- 
ble efforts  come  to  naught.  It  will  require 
far  more  than  a  few  uncritical  and  often  dis- 
honest notes,  a  few  distortions  of  history  and 
a  superabundance  of  bitterness  and  animos- 
ity to  destroy  that  most  marvelous  fact  (no 
matter  what  the  view-point)  of  modern  his- 
tory. The  force  of  arms,  the  scrutiny  of 
science,  the  skill  of  diplomacy,  and  the  accu- 
mulated hate  of  nations  have  tried  themselves 
against  that  fact.  They  all  die,  but  the 
' ' fact"  tremendously  vital  continues  its  mis- 
sion. 

"So  much  must  the  Protestant  grant,"  says 
Newman,  "that,  if  such  a  system  of  doctrine 
as  he  would  now  introduce  ever  existed  in 
early  times,  it  has  been  clean  swept  away  as 


VOICES  FROM  THE  EAST       101 

if  by  a  deluge,  suddenly,  silently,  and  without 
memorial;  by  a  deluge  coming  in  the  night, 
and  utterly  soaking,  rotting,  heaving  up,  and 
hurrying  off  every  vestige  of  what  it  found 
in  the  Church."1 

"We  know  the  kingdom  is  still  on  earth," 
says  the  same  luminous  writer.  "Where  is 
it?  If  all  that  can  be  found  of  it  is  what  can 
be  discerned  at  Constantinople  or  Canter- 
bury, I  say,  it  has  disappeared;  and  either 
there  was  a  radical  corruption  of  Christian- 
ity from  the  first,  or  Christianity  came  to  an 
end  in  proportion  as  the  type  of  the  Nicene 
Church  faded  out  of  the  world:  for  all  we 
know  of  Christianity  in  ancient  history,  as  a 
concrete  fact,  is  the  Church  of  Athanasius 
and  his  fellow  bishops :  it  is  nothing  else  his- 
torically but  that  bundle  of  phenomena,  that 
combination  of  claims,  prerogatives  and  cor- 
responding acts,  some  of  which  I  have  re- 
counted above.  There  is  no  help  for  it  then ; 
we  cannot  take  as  much  as  we  please,  and 
no  more,  of  an  institution  which  has  a  mo- 
nadic existence.  We  must  either  give  up  the 
belief  in  the  Church  as  a  divine  institution 
altogether,  or  we  must  recognize  it  at  this 
day  in  that  communion  of  which  the  Pope 
is  head.    With  him  alone,  and  round  about 

i  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine.     Introduc. 


102  THE  SEE  OF  PETER 

him  are  found  the  claims,  the  prerogatives, 
and  duties  which  we  identify  with  the  king- 
dom set  up  hy  Christ.  We  must  take  things 
as  they  are;  to  believe  in  a  Church,  is  to  be- 
lieve in  the  Pope. ' ' l 

i  Difficulties  of  Anglicans,  Vol.  II,  The  Papal  ch.  p.  207. 


INDEX 


Abraham  Echellensis  50 
Achaia  32 
Adriatic  Sea  7 
Adrumetum  61 
iEgaean  Sea  6 
African  bishops  63 
Alexandria    23,    25,    37,    38, 

42,  51 
American    "  Romanism  "    61 
American   "  Romanists  "    70 
Anastasius,    Bishop     (Thes- 

salonica)    82 
Anatolius,      Bishop       ( Con- 
stantinople)   85 
Anglican    Ch.,    etc.     54,    68, 

100 
Anglicanism  28,  35,  36 
Anglican     Reformation     28, 

29,  31 
Anselm  St.  24 
Antioch  23,  25,  88 
Apostles  1,  9,  30,  31,  77,  88 
Apostolic  Age  37 
Apostolic   Canons  41 
Apostolic  Rock  81 
Apostolic  See  i,  28,  43,  44, 

52,  69,  82,  86 
Aquileia  82,  86 
Arabic       Ms.       of       Nicene 

Canons  49,  50 
Arius  43 

Asia,   churches  of    33,  76 
Asia  Minor  7 
Asclepas,     Bishop      (Gaza) 

40 


Asseman  49 

"  Assertio  Septem  Sacra- 
mentorum  "   58 

Athanasius  St.  38,  39,  40, 
51,  101 

Aurelian  Persecution  13 

Augustine,  St.  ( Canter- 
bury)  24 

Augustine,  St.  (Hippo)  4, 
25,  27 


B 


Baluze  ( Benedictine  Pa- 
trologist)    71,  72,  73 

a  Becket,  St.  Thomas,  Bish- 
op 24 

Benedictine  Edition  of 
Fathers  72 

Bernard,  St.   18 

Beryllus,  Bishop  (Bostra) 
46 

Beverly   55 

Bohemia   57 

Broad  Church  36 

Byzantine  Capital  43,  78 


Callistus  Pope  45,  47,  53 
Calvary  96 

Canterbury    22,  55,  101 
Carthage,    See    of    63 
Cathedra  Petri  3 
Catherine  of  Sienna,  St.   18 
Celestine  I,  St.,  Pope  87 
Chair  of  Peter  65,  88 


103 


104 


INDEX 


Chalcedon,    Council    of    53, 

85,  92 
Clark,    Dr.,    John,    English 

Ambassador  58 
Clement  I,  St.,  Pope  i  4,  7, 

8,  9,  69,  75 
Confession       ( sacramental ) 

54 
Constantinople    42,    44,    78, 

79,  83,  85,  86,  101 
Corinth,  Ch.  of  5,  6,  7,  32, 

69,  75,  76 
Cornelius,  Pope  61,  62,  65 
Cyprian,  St.  i,  iv,  4,  27-31, 

60-71,   77 
Cyrus    (city  of)    88 

D 

Damasus,  Pope  43,  44,  86 

Dionysius,  Bishop  (Alex- 
andria)   38,  39,  76 

Dionysius,  Pope  i,  38,  39, 
76,  86 

Dollinger  46 

Dunstan  24 

Dupin,  French  Patrologist 
22 

Durham  55 

E 
Easter     ( controversy    over ) 

17 
East    (Churches   of)    i,    17, 

18,  47,  54,  87 
"  Ecumenical    Bishop  "    89 
Edinburgh       (Translations) 

iii,  72 
Eleutherus,  Pope  13-16 
England  34 
Ephesians  10 
Ephesus  6,  33 
Eusebians   (gathered  at  An- 

tioch)    3,  41 
Eusebius   4,    9,    15,    16,    17, 

46 
Eutyches  83 


Firmillian,  Bishop  ( Csesa- 
rea  in  Cappadocia)    67 

Flarian,  Bishop  (Constanti- 
nople)  83,  84 

"Forged  Decretals"  i,  17, 
18,  47,  54,  87 

France  (Her  recognition  of 
Rome)   55 

G 

Gallic  martyrs  15,  16 
Gasquet,  Abbot  56 
Gaudentius,   Bishop   50 
Greece  7 

Greek  Churches  35,  54 
Gregory  the  Great,  Pope  4, 
51,   52,   61,   90-92 


Henry  VIII  28-31,   58,   102 

Hexham   55 

Hippolytus,     St.     i,     45-48, 

53-56 
Holy  See  59 
Holy    Trinity     (not    defined 

until  fourth  century)    1 
Hosius,    Bishop     (Cordova) 

51 
Hyde,  Dr.  73 


Ignatius,  St.  i,  11,  12,  76 
Illyricum  82,  87 
Innocent  I,  Pope  87 
Irenaeus,     St.     I    4,     14-21, 

23-26,  76 
Italy  7 


Jerusalem  23,  24,  42,  43 
John,  Apostle  6,  75 
John,     Bishop      (Constanti- 
nople), the  "Faster"  89 
John,  Bishop    (Coptic)    50 


INDEX 


105 


John,     Bishop      (Syracuse) 

52 
Julius  I,  Pope  39-42 


Lanfranc,  Bishop  (Canter- 
bury) 24 

Latin  Christianity  13 

Latrocinium  88 

Leo,  Byzantine  Emperor  69 

Leo  the  Great,  Pope  4,  53, 
78-81,  85,   86,  98 

London    22 

Longland,  Bishop  ( Lin- 
coln)  58 

Low  Church  36 

Lucius,  Bishop  ( Adrian- 
ople)    40 

Luther  57,  58 

Lutheranism  57 

Lyons,  See  of  11 

M 
McGiffert,    Dr.     Patrologist 

47 
Macedonia  7,  33 
Magnesians   10 
Mass,  the  54 
Marcellus,      Bishop       ( An- 

cyra)    40 
Marcion,  Bishop   (Aries)   66 
Marcion,      Byzantine      Em- 
peror 85 
Martin  I,  St.,  Pope  95,  97 
" Matrix "     (Rome,    the    of 

the  Cath.  Ch.)   62 
Mauretania  66 
Middle  Ages    13,  37 
Montanists  13,  16,  76 
More,  Sir  Thomas  56 
"Mother   Church"  42 

N 
Natalis,    Bishop     ( Salona ) 
92 


Newman,  Cardinal  2,  4,  11, 

36,  77,  100 
Nice,  3,  9,  48-51,  75,  79,  85 
Nicholas  of  Cusa,   Cardinal 

93 
Nicholas  I,  Pope  69,  94 
Northampton  55 
Nottingham  55 


Origen  i,  35 

Oxford     ( Patristic    transla- 
tions)   31 


Papacy  i,  18,  21,  52,  54,  61, 
70,  77,  94 

Papal  "Idea"  75,  77,  80, 
99 

Papal  "  Imposture  "  47 

Papal   "Infallibility"    99 

Papal  ;<  System"  63,  78 

Patristic  Literature  vi 

Paul,  St.,  Apostle  4,  12,  19, 
23,  25,  30,  32,  33 

Paul,  Bishop  ( Constanti- 
nople)  40,  51 

Paul  of  Samosata  43 

Pelagius,   Pope  91 

Peter,  St.,  Apostle  4-6,  12, 
16,  19,  23,  25,  30-33,  41, 
49-52,  57,  63-66,  67,  69, 
77-81,  85,  88,  89,  92,  97 

Photius,  69 

"  Pilgrimage  of  Perfection  " 
( an  ante  -  Reformation 
English  book)    29 

Pope  30,  57,  58,  64,  68,  101 

Pothinus,  Bishop  (Lyons) 
13,   15,  17 

Powell,  William  (an  ante- 
Reformation  English  au- 
thor)   31 


106 


INDEX 


Q 

Quartodecimaus   18 

R 

Reformation  ( English )  28, 
29,   31 

"  Refutation  and  Defence," 
Dion  of  Alexandria  to 
Dion  of  Rome    38 

"Refutation  of  All  Here- 
sies," work  of  Hippolytus 
(?)   45,  53,  54 

Ritualists   100 

Rodger  Edgeworth  (a  wit- 
ness for  Catholic  Eng- 
land)   30 

Romanus,  S.  J.  49,  50 

Rome  4,  6,  7,  12,  14,  18,  20- 
26,  28,  30,  33,  38,  40-51, 
62,  63,  67,  68,  74-77 

"Root"  (Rome  the,  of  the 
Cath.  Ch.)    62 


Seven  Sacraments  54 
Shahan,  Cath.  Hist.  9 
Siricius,  St.,  Pope  86 
Socrates,  Eccl.  Hist.    18,  39, 

40 
"  Specialties n   of   the   Eng. 

Ref.    28,  29,  31 
Stephen,      Bishop       (Dora) 

95,  96,  97 
Stephen   I,   Pope   i,   66,   68, 

76,  86 
Supremacy,  Papal,  in  Eng- 
land    before     the     great 
apostasy  56 
Syrian  Church    43 


Tertullian  i,  4,  26-34,  76 
Theodore  I,  Pope  97 
Theodoret,   Historian  88 
Thrace  7 
"Tridentine   Sense"   67 


Salmon,    Protestant    divine 

9 
Sardica,   Council  of  41,  42, 

50,  51,  85 
Second   Ecumenical   Council 

42 
Sergius,    Bishop     (Cyprus) 

97 


W 

Western  Churches   13,  47 
Wordsworth,     Dr.,     on     St. 

Hippolytus    and    the    See 

of  Rome  54 


Zozomen,  Historian  39,  40 


M^HMH  1 1 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 


m^®®* 


-REG^D-tB-fefrTT'To-^TlVtT 


«e!^|^H^ 


MM  07 


<ooQ 


o.c 


BEBK£l^v 


"  General  Library 

LD2lA-40m-8,'71  University  of  California 

(P6572sl0)476-A-32  Berkeley 


